What would be the role of artists in a communist society? [Archive]

BobKKKindle$

16th September 2009, 09:01

The point of communism as far as art is concerned should be to eliminate the social category of "artist" by ensuring that each and every individual has sufficient time and resources to exercise their creative talents. The experience of past revolutions indicates that this process would take place alongside changes in the way that society thinks about art, and the erosion of the lines that are currently drawn between "art" and other forms of activity. During the Russian Revolution, for example, not only were there new forms of visual art such as constructivism, there were also cases of factory sirens being used as instruments as part of industrial orchestras that encompassed entire city districts, as well as orchestras that pursued music without the aid of a conductor. As individuals who live under capitalism it is impossible for us to imagine the forms of act that will be possible in a society where people's horizons are not artificially restricted by the conditions of alienated labour, just like it's hard for us to imagine the kind of social relationships that people will choose to pursue when they no longer spend most of their lives and early development inside nuclear families. What we do no not need are people like INH who maintain bourgeois concepts of art and artists by asserting that not everyone is capable of producing art, and that art should still be restricted to a privileged minority under socialism. The Marxist view on art in a post-revolutionary society, and activity in general, is effectively summed up by Marx in the following passage, where he does not refer to art in particular, but establishes that socialism should involve the diversification of our daily activity, and as many opportunities for the development of our talents as possible:

"As soon as the distribution of labor comes into being, each man has a particular, exclusive sphere of activity, which is forced upon him and from which he cannot escape. He is a hunter, a fisherman, a herdsman, or a critical critic, and must remain so if he does not want to lose his means of livelihood; while in communist society, where nobody has one exclusive sphere of activity but each can become accomplished in any branch he wishes, society regulates the general production and thus makes it possible for me to do one thing today and another tomorrow, to hunt in the morning, fish in the afternoon, rear cattle in the evening, criticize after dinner, just as I have a mind, without ever becoming hunter, fisherman, herdsman or critic"

The German Ideology, 1846

JJM 777

16th September 2009, 09:20

who gets to decide if my artwork is 'worthy' of labor credits?
Imagine that we really have a Socialist state with millions of people. To get a comfortable standard of living to the population (where also many are too young or too old, or too sick or mentally insane to do any work) would require effective centralized planning of productive work.

Art has an important role in creating a comfortable life experience -- the esthetic beauty of architecture, cars, clothes, sculpture, as well as art that will be hung on the wall.

A truly Socialist state would produce art quite as much as a Capitalist free market does, because esthetic beauty makes people feel good. As in every profession, also in this case the centrally planned employment system would need to interview job applicants, assess their abilities, and select the most suitable persons for each work. Otherwise the work will not be productive what comes to quality (as experienced by the mainstream population), quantity or both of these.

Who decides what is good art? In free market economy, good art sells and bad art is left on the shelf without any buyers showing up. Would be quite unreasonable to make a Socialist economy where you can make bad art that people generally don't like, and then the state buys it from you and puts publicly on display.

RedRise

16th September 2009, 10:30

Also, art definitely makes society a more exciting and colourful place! It would be pretty bland without it.

Absolutely agreed. I think the same goes for all forms of art including sculpture, music, drama and fiction. Art basically sums up all the stuff that makes our lives fun and exciting.

not everybody is capable of producing quality art.

What is good art and what isn't really depends on your taste.

Psy

16th September 2009, 16:30

Imagine that we really have a Socialist state with millions of people. To get a comfortable standard of living to the population (where also many are too young or too old, or too sick or mentally insane to do any work) would require effective centralized planning of productive work.

Art has an important role in creating a comfortable life experience -- the esthetic beauty of architecture, cars, clothes, sculpture, as well as art that will be hung on the wall.

A truly Socialist state would produce art quite as much as a Capitalist free market does, because esthetic beauty makes people feel good. As in every profession, also in this case the centrally planned employment system would need to interview job applicants, assess their abilities, and select the most suitable persons for each work. Otherwise the work will not be productive what comes to quality (as experienced by the mainstream population), quantity or both of these.

Who decides what is good art? In free market economy, good art sells and bad art is left on the shelf without any buyers showing up. Would be quite unreasonable to make a Socialist economy where you can make bad art that people generally don't like, and then the state buys it from you and puts publicly on display.
This was covered in Art in a Communist society. (http://www.revleft.com/vb/art-communist-society-t78626/index.html?t=78626)While large studio's would be centrally planned, there would still be the need to produce experimental art ahead of what society understands, hell most people still don't understand art as capitalists have no use for complex art, capitalism has pushed arts towards resemblance (a.k.a realism but that is a poor description as realism is not real, it just resembles what is real) and away from abstract meaning, most art that tries to abstract to move away from resemblance is currently not understood my most of the population, even Magritte's "The Treachery of Images" is mostly not understood even though it is pretty strait forward abstraction and you have to pretty thick not to get it if you did think about it.

While communism probably enlighten the masses to art beyond resemblance there would still be a need for art the masses just don't understand (at that point) but is needed for the evolution of art. Then there is also the need for art production for the sake of personal expression meaning the need for the means of personal art production.

One thing for sure artistic debates would all come to surface into a communist society, I could see major popular reviewers in a communist society analyzing artistic styles of new releases of even TV shows going into how the show handles or mishandles transitions from on scene to another, for example praising a director for aspect to aspect transitions to show the same scene from different shots to build atmosphere while criticism of directors that use basic utilitarian transitions that is only functional.

JJM 777

16th September 2009, 20:08

At least one thing would change in Socialist society: no more Hollywood-sponsored movie "critics" who never say anything negative about any movie.

Sugar Hill Kevis

16th September 2009, 20:37

Under a communist society, each person will be a scholar and an artist.

Under a communist society, people might stop making these pretentious and hollow statements.

spiltteeth

16th September 2009, 21:32

Robocommie

17th September 2009, 04:55

I'm glad to see this sort of answer, myself. There are some on this site who believe art should be abolished with the sole exception being revolutionary propaganda. I've never encountered this opinion, even among anti-revisionists, outside of this forum. So I'm hoping it is indeed an irrelevant fringe minority position, as it seems to be. Though I will not be surprised if it should find expression on this thread. We shall see.

You can always find some folks with some creepily 1984-like visions of communism on this site, I've found. They're not universal though.

Manifesto

17th September 2009, 04:59

At least one thing would change in Socialist society: no more Hollywood-sponsored movie "critics" who never say anything negative about any movie.
You mean like how every movie is the movie of the year?

Robocommie

17th September 2009, 05:09

These are great and comforting answers. Really I just worry that Lenin's fixation on productivity, due to Russia's poor material condition, would carry over to a communist society and art would be relegated to secondaRY importance as 'not real work'.

In my mind, a Marxist society is one which fully embraces the flowering of human potential, and that means allowing the unfettered development of the arts as well as the sciences and industry. We're not ants, after all, we're human beings.

The only question though, is the fine details of how it'd work? Because who would really want to work in a factory or in a mine when you could be a painter or a composer?

Psy

17th September 2009, 14:25

In my mind, a Marxist society is one which fully embraces the flowering of human potential, and that means allowing the unfettered development of the arts as well as the sciences and industry. We're not ants, after all, we're human beings.

The only question though, is the fine details of how it'd work? Because who would really want to work in a factory or in a mine when you could be a painter or a composer?
Automation can greatly lower necessarily labor time and there are people that do love being mechanics, engineers and technicians. There probably won't be any shortage of people that would be happy maintaining machinery as they see them as very very large toys (this is especially true for trains).

Robocommie

17th September 2009, 16:15

Automation can greatly lower necessarily labor time and there are people that do love being mechanics, engineers and technicians. There probably won't be any shortage of people that would be happy maintaining machinery as they see them as very very large toys (this is especially true for trains).

That's true, and I suppose it's also true that the ideal society will also afford each worker enough spare time to develop his or her own art as a hobby.

And I suppose there's no reason private citizens in a Marxist world could not put together co-op funds for the arts so that select individuals could be given grants to focus on their work.

JJM 777

17th September 2009, 18:11

You mean like how every movie is the movie of the year?
Every movie cannot be Movie of the Year. People would notice the bluff when they see movies lined up on the shelf of movie store. But every movie can be "A MUST SEE! (New York Times)" Somehow people don't notice this bluff.

In Socialism movie covers would tell the truth about the movie. After revolution many movie covers would lose the obligatory text "MUST SEE", and get more informative labels like "73% viewers say that this movie is total crap, and the other 27% refrained from any comment because they never bothered to watch the film past the first 5 minutes".

Stranger Than Paradise

17th September 2009, 18:53

Under a communist society, each person will be a scholar and an artist.

This point is spot on. We must destroy the notion of professional artists and allow each and every person freedom to pursue their creative interests and allow for a higher level of creativity in the minds of all.

17th September 2009, 21:51

We must destroy the notion of professional artists and allow each and every person freedom to pursue their creative interests and allow for a higher level of creativity in the minds of all.

I am essentially in agreement with this. I don't like the whole idea of "professional artists" or "professional musicians", and I care even less for the idea of "professional athletes" etc. (but the last one is off topic)
I think art is something that ought to be done for the sheer enjoyment of (or in many if not all people, 'necessity for') creative expression, as opposed to being done for the sake of a paycheck. Art should belong to the public, particularly when the public budget provides the artist with the necessary materials for the creation of the art.

Its funny, when I was in junior high, I decided there should be an artistic siesta - an hour or so in the afternoon every day when people take a break from their labor to create some form of art. I still think its a cool idea, regardless of its impracticality and idealism (which, give me a break, I was like thirteen):)

Luisrah

17th September 2009, 23:20

Its funny, when I was in junior high, I decided there should be an artistic siesta - an hour or so in the afternoon every day when people take a break from their labor to create some form of art. I still think its a cool idea, regardless of its impracticality and idealism (which, give me a break, I was like thirteen):)

I like the concept of it actually.

But in a communist society, as people needs can be satisfacted through high production, the need to work isn't so high, which leaves a lot of free time to the people.
Free time that people use to educate themselves more, do sports, do whatever they like, and including making art.

I believe that in a communist society, the production of art would be much higher than what it is now. Many countries (such as mine) don't care much about artists, and the only way they have to survive is to sell art at high prices to rich people. Once that is gone, people CAN do art because they like it (they don't have to choose something else in order to survive) and art would pop up everywhere.

17th September 2009, 23:49

I believe that in a communist society, the production of art would be much higher than what it is now. Many countries (such as mine) don't care much about artists, and the only way they have to survive is to sell art at high prices to rich people. Once that is gone, people CAN do art because they like it (they don't have to choose something else in order to survive) and art would pop up everywhere.
Well, none of this goes against any of what I said really. Except that I still don't really see the benefit of 'salaried' (so to speak) "professional artists". If everyone has the time and resources available to create art (and thus, be an artist), what is the purpose of, need for, or interest in 'the artist as a profession'? Certainly there will be sports leagues consisting of exceptionally good athletes and presumably some sort of equivalent for (or public recognition of, at least) exceptionally talented artists. But this does not mean that either talent deserves to be compensated with additional monetary (or resource-based) allocations simply because they happen to be the "cream of the crop" at an activity that everyone is free and welcome to participate in. The reward for excellence in these sorts of areas, it would seem to me, would be in recognition, not in affluence.

steinbeckjohn88

18th September 2009, 09:02

This point is spot on. We must destroy the notion of professional artists and allow each and every person freedom to pursue their creative interests and allow for a higher level of creativity in the minds of all.

When people try to make profit from there creative pieces. Then it terms as Professional atists.

JJM 777

18th September 2009, 09:14

Certainly there will be sports leagues consisting of exceptionally good athletes and presumably some sort of equivalent for (or public recognition of, at least) exceptionally talented artists. But this does not mean that either talent deserves to be compensated with additional monetary (or resource-based) allocations
Top-class artists or athletes don't need "additional" monetary compensation, they simply need labour credits for the work that they are asked to do.

Here is the difference between "amateur" and "professional" artist, musician, sportsman, magician, theater actor, movie actor, or whatever. As a citizen I want to see soccer matches of the very best (national level) teams, and I want to hear concerts of the very best (national level) artists. This public demand, to be entertained by the very best sport or art, creates a situation where certain individuals are requested (by the general public) to perform their skills often and in many venues. Public demand is what makes an artist or sportsman "professional" in the sense that the publicly requested activity consumes a lot of time, possibly even full-time every day, and thus deserves labour credits.

Well I don't think that soccer players would work "full-time" in a Socialist society. There is no public demand for a league match every day. Even on top level, sport would be a part-time profession, and the athletes would do also some other work part-time.

18th September 2009, 10:30

Top-class artists or athletes don't need "additional" monetary compensation, they simply need labour credits for the work that they are asked to do.

Here is the difference between "amateur" and "professional" artist, musician, sportsman, magician, theater actor, movie actor, or whatever. As a citizen I want to see soccer matches of the very best (national level) teams, and I want to hear concerts of the very best (national level) artists. This public demand, to be entertained by the very best sport or art, creates a situation where certain individuals are requested (by the general public) to perform their skills often and in many venues. Public demand is what makes an artist or sportsman "professional" in the sense that the publicly requested activity consumes a lot of time, possibly even full-time every day, and thus deserves labour credits.

I don't have any qualms with this. Ultimately my concern about "professional" artists/athletes/musicians comes down to a question of vocational training in adolescence and teenagers. So, for example, if young teenagers begin vocational training for their selected career path, I just see a lot of kids choosing to do their studies in painting, for example, simply because it seems like an easy way to make a living. But laying this scenario out, I do see that there isn't really a lot of practicality in starting youths in vocational training for their selected career anyway, so the point I was making isn't very relevant either way I suppose. So yes, I really have no dispute with what you are proposing.

Black Sheep

18th September 2009, 11:52

commie: hey man,help us,we'll make the socialist revolution, in order for workers to gain the full product of their labor and manage themselves,thus bringing wealth and equality to all the people in the earth.

artist: oh boy, this sounds great! What will i be in that new society?

comme: unemployed
:D

Psy

18th September 2009, 15:59

I don't have any qualms with this. Ultimately my concern about "professional" artists/athletes/musicians comes down to a question of vocational training in adolescence and teenagers. So, for example, if young teenagers begin vocational training for their selected career path, I just see a lot of kids choosing to do their studies in painting, for example, simply because it seems like an easy way to make a living. But laying this scenario out, I do see that there isn't really a lot of practicality in starting youths in vocational training for their selected career anyway, so the point I was making isn't very relevant either way I suppose. So yes, I really have no dispute with what you are proposing.

But it really wouldn't be an easy way to make a living in a communist society (making a living really wouldn't even be a worry of most people in a communist society), resemblance would be lose its dominance in a socialist society (as resemblance is the only art style capitalists understands) meaning professional artists would have to study the theory behind art, to understand the advantages of resemblance, iconic-abstraction and non iconic-abstraction and much more of the science of art.

Not knowing the science behind art would most likely make professional artist look amateurish as odds are their peers would criticize them for using basic techniques (like those found now in most capitalist backed art) and not being able to follow debates of the science of art. If the other artists are having a huge debate on negative space and you are still thinking like current mainstream capitalist artists would mostly be lost epically if they drag up long dead feudal artists (abstraction was far more popular during feudalism, mostly due to lack of technology and techniques).

Odds are the most professional artists in communist society would work out of university studios to try and evolve the science of art rather then simply creating art. So as a career choice art would not be easy and require just as much mental effort as becoming a engineer.

JJM 777

18th September 2009, 16:21

Art would be more democratic in Socialism.

Now 1,000 perfectly good rock bands send a demo to a big music label, and only one of them is selected to enjoy a practical monopoly position in globally distributed record sales and concert contracts.

Analysts have said that there will never be another music phenomenon equal to Michael Jackson, because MJ enjoyed a very protected monopoly position on MTV channel, while nowadays the Internet has democratized the distribution of music, anyone can become a star on YouTube.

ckaihatsu

18th September 2009, 17:21

The chief advantage that would result from the establishment of
Socialism is, undoubtedly, the fact that Socialism would relieve us
from that sordid necessity of living for others which, in the
present condition of things, presses so hardly upon almost
everybody. In fact, scarcely anyone at all escapes.

Now and then, in the course of the century, a great man of science,
like Darwin; a great poet, like Keats; a fine critical spirit, like
M. Renan; a supreme artist, like Flaubert, has been able to isolate
himself, to keep himself out of reach of the clamorous claims of
others, to stand 'under the shelter of the wall,' as Plato puts it,
and so to realise the perfection of what was in him, to his own
incomparable gain, and to the incomparable and lasting gain of the
whole world.

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

A truly Socialist state would produce art quite as much as a Capitalist free market does, because esthetic beauty makes people feel good. As in every profession, also in this case the centrally planned employment system would need to interview job applicants, assess their abilities, and select the most suitable persons for each work. Otherwise the work will not be productive what comes to quality (as experienced by the mainstream population), quantity or both of these.

I disagree with this approach -- rather, I would say that *any* person's request for resources, whether for creative pursuits or scientific investigations, should *not* be denied by the larger communist society / administration, unless the request is really so large that it would become onerous on society's resources to fulfill it.

In *that* case it would then essentially be a *political* initiative and would probably be better set up as an organizational project, or even as an institution. Being political it would have to come in front of the communist administration for mass decision-making as to its requested use of collectivized assets and resources.

*Your* approach sounds much more Stalinistic, or top-down, in its administration.

Who decides what is good art? In free market economy, good art sells and bad art is left on the shelf without any buyers showing up. Would be quite unreasonable to make a Socialist economy where you can make bad art that people generally don't like, and then the state buys it from you and puts publicly on display.

There's no reason that the socialist / communist state should take *any* interest whatsoever in cultural or personal affairs. Just as the American (bourgeois) Revolution struggled to separate the interests of the state from the interests of the church, *we*, as proletarian revolutionaries, should struggle to separate the interests of the workers' state from *all* resulting cultural outgrowths, not just religious ones.

And I suppose there's no reason private citizens in a Marxist world could not put together co-op funds for the arts so that select individuals could be given grants to focus on their work.

This, too, is too localized -- my understanding of what a revolution is about is that it should *free up* the assets and resources that are currently locked away under private ownership.

Once freed, *no one* could realistically *be denied* access to *personal use* of those resources, *for personal use*. Anything resulting from personal use would either remain personal, or else, if meant for larger consumption, it would then by default be collectivized.

Top-class artists or athletes don't need "additional" monetary compensation, they simply need labour credits for the work that they are asked to do.

I agree with this, in general, but let me ask you this -- what if the widespread *demand* on a top-class artist or athlete's *schedule* was such that there was more demand for the person's time than the person had in their entire *lifetime* -- ?

Here is the difference between "amateur" and "professional" artist, musician, sportsman, magician, theater actor, movie actor, or whatever. As a citizen I want to see soccer matches of the very best (national level) teams, and I want to hear concerts of the very best (national level) artists. This public demand, to be entertained by the very best sport or art, creates a situation where certain individuals are requested (by the general public) to perform their skills often and in many venues. Public demand is what makes an artist or sportsman "professional" in the sense that the publicly requested activity consumes a lot of time, possibly even full-time every day, and thus deserves labour credits.

How would the various localities determine the priority for the "professional" artist or athlete's work schedule? (It could be done on a first-come, first-served basis, or by lottery, or perhaps there *should* be an increase in per-labor-hour compensation for the *better-quality* artist or athlete's time -- this would show *respect* as well as provide incentive for others to reach the top of their game.)

Well I don't think that soccer players would work "full-time" in a Socialist society. There is no public demand for a league match every day. Even on top level, sport would be a part-time profession, and the athletes would do also some other work part-time.

I think this assumes too much -- what if, in a post-capitalist society, people had far more free time for leisurely pursuits (due to automation), and there was more societal ability to host top-level athletic and artistic events, at more and smaller venues, everywhere?

More people could use their freed-up time to *become* top-level athletes (or whatever), or they could *watch* top-level athletes.

Consider that, as things are today, capitalism has a built-in *scarcifying* mechanism -- private ownership wants to make their commodity seem *special* and not-easily-attainable, so that it can fetch a higher price on the market.

But, in a communist society, this artificial scarcifying mechanism would no longer exist -- without markets there is no marketing. (There may still be announcements, or "advertising", but it would *not* be revenue-driven.)

More people would be free to simply pick up the resources they needed to to reach the heights they wanted, outside of privatizing corporate sponsorship or similar commodification. Perhaps more people would also be freed up to make themselves available to spectators, like amateurs today. If there was a *renaissance* of personal achievement available, outside of funding considerations, then there would be more *supply* of top-level soccer players (or whatever) to be available for more leagues, and more league matches.

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

Psy

18th September 2009, 17:40

There's no reason that the socialist / communist state should take *any* interest whatsoever in cultural or personal affairs. Just as the American (bourgeois) Revolution struggled to separate the interests of the state from the interests of the church, *we*, as proletarian revolutionaries, should struggle to separate the interests of the workers' state from *all* resulting cultural outgrowths, not just religious ones.

I disagree lets say a communist society is faced with Dziga Vertov, Sergei Eisenstein and Micheal Bay all wanting to do large projects. Dziga Vertov while a brilliant artist was so focused on the structure of art that his films had no content making him far more suited in studying the science of art at a acadiemic level then doing major films and most suited doing cheaper experimental films to let him explore his thoeires without stories getting in the way. Sergei Eisentein also a brillant artist but could create practical films unlike Dziga Vertov thus off course you green light his films as they were accessible to the masses while being very artistic (and experimental). Michael Bay has no understanding of art so of course you don't green light any of his movies till his goes to a real art school to learn proper film making techniques yet Micheal Bay would be free to make personal films as a hobby but the state would class him as a unskilled artist thus have no access to the resources of large studios.

ckaihatsu

18th September 2009, 18:03

Psy

18th September 2009, 18:14

You're assuming a context of *scarcity* here regarding movie-making, and as a result you're falling into the trap of moralism.

As far as society / communism is concerned, there *should not be* any value judgments on the content of the art itself. From a material perspective we're *only* concerned with whether there are sufficient assets and resources to make happen what the individual wants to make happen.

Then we are just patronizing artists saying they don't have to study the science of art because society is not going to judge the artist's quality. It is like telling carpenter they don't need to learn the science of carpentry because society won't care about the quality of their work due to abundance.

A communist society does have to make quality judgment on art to ensure there is not just a large quantity of art but quality art.

ckaihatsu

18th September 2009, 18:29

Then we are just patronizing artists saying they don't have to study the science of art because society is not going to judge the artist's quality.

No, I think *you're* being patronizing and paternalistic in assuming that serious artists *would not want to* study the "science of art" (and art history) in order to potentially make better art.

And what of especially adept artists, or prodigies, who *prove* themselves, through their artwork, without any formal training? It's for reasons like this one that we *shouldn't* tie resource allocation to value judgments for small-scale, apolitical pursuits in a post-capitalist society.

It is like telling carpenter they don't need to learn the science of carpentry because society won't care about the quality of their work due to abundance.

No, your analogy is *not* accurate -- you're comparing something that's use-*ful*, carpentry, to something that's use-*less*, artwork. Artwork should not seek to serve a purpose, so it's thereby freed from the strictures and requirements of *utility* that use-*ful* items must adhere to.

A communist society does have to make quality judgment on art to ensure there is not just a large quantity of art but quality art.

No, I fundamentally disagree with you on principle here.

ckaihatsu

18th September 2009, 18:56

A work of art is the unique result of a unique temperament. Its beauty comes from the fact that the author is what he is. It has nothing to do with the fact that other people want what they want. Indeed, the moment that an artist takes notice of what other people want, and tries to supply the demand, he ceases to be an artist, and becomes a dull or an amusing craftsman, an honest or a dishonest tradesman. He has no further claim to be considered as an artist. Art is the most intense mode of Individualism that the world has known. I am inclined to say that it is the only real mode of Individualism that the world has known.

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

---

Psy

18th September 2009, 19:19

No, I think *you're* being patronizing and paternalistic in assuming that serious artists *would not want to* study the "science of art" (and art history) in order to potentially make better art.

Explain Michal Bay, okay you could say he makes large scale films while being a unskilled film marker for monetary gains but he never used those profits to learn art and there are a large number of film markers that are unskilled but in the industry because capitalists put them there.

You have the problem of momentum of capitalist art, having large scale studio staffed by people that went through art schools liberated from capitalists pre-conception of art would ensure new large scale art produced in a communist society would be free from the ghost of art being simply a commodity.

And what of especially adept artists, or prodigies, who *prove* themselves, through their artwork, without any formal training? It's for reasons like this one that we *shouldn't* tie resource allocation to value judgments for small-scale, apolitical pursuits in a post-capitalist society.

I'm talking large scale art production for example the large Warner Brothers studios in Burbank California. I just don't see a self-taught film maker in a communist studio getting access to the resources on that scale without at least testing them for competency. Why should hundreds of workers in a studio give their labor to a project lead by a film maker that for all they know is unskilled and have no clue what they are doing?

No, your analogy is *not* accurate -- you're comparing something that's use-*ful*, carpentry, to something that's use-*less*, artwork. Artwork should not seek to serve a purpose, so it's thereby freed from the strictures and requirements of *utility* that use-*ful* items must adhere to.

Art has utility, without art we would have no language thus no communication, art also brought us the written word thus without art there would be no archives of knowledge, art has also brought us iconic-abstraction (for example the men and women silhouette on washrooms) and shape-abstraction (for example the double bars on pause buttons) and the understanding of the process of closure (that the brain perceiving the whole while only observing parts thus why films seems to be moving to us and not separate pictures). So art has contributed a lot to science and should not be disregarded as use-less.

No, I fundamentally and principally disagree with you here.
It is a matter of ensuring the people in the large studios have the knowledge to build quality art.

ckaihatsu

18th September 2009, 19:41

Explain Michal Bay, okay you could say he makes large scale films while being a unskilled film marker for monetary gains but he never used those profits to learn art and there are a large number of film markers that are unskilled but in the industry because capitalists put them there.

You have the problem of momentum of capitalist art, having large scale studio staffed by people that went through that went through art schools liberated from capitalists pre-conception of art would ensure new large scale art produced in a communist society would be free from the ghost of art being simply a commodity.

I'm talking large scale art production for example the large Warner Brothers studios in Burbank Californa. I just don't see a self-taught film maker in a communist studio getting access to the resources on that scale without at least testing them for competency. What should hundreds of workers in a studio give their labor to a project lead by a film maker that for all they know is unskilled and have no clue what they are doing?

I *still* think you're overly concerned with the *content* being produced -- as political people we should *not* address the *content* -- if there aren't enough movie production studios in existence to handle the backlog of requests for movie productions then that's a *political* issue and it would mean that the society would need to mobilize workers, at society's expense, to *** build more movie studios ***.

If many local workers objected to laboring to build additional movie studios because of the short-term listing of movies to be produced there once they're finished, then that's fine -- the larger administration would have an interest in finding laborers *elsewhere* to build the studios so as to supply capacity for the long-term.

At *worst* one locality might be able to forestall new construction altogether based on their outrage over the content of planned movie productions in their area. That would just mean that the construction might have to be taken to another locality -- once built the movie studios would be able to serve as infrastructure for the production of *many kinds* of movies, well into the future.

Art has utility, without art we would have no langage thus no communication, art also brought us the written word thus without art there would be no archives of knowledge, art has also brought us iconic-abstraction (for example the men and women silhouette on washrooms) and shape-abtraction (for example the double bars on pause buttons) and the understanding of the process of closure (that the brain preceiving the whole while only oberserving parts thus why films seems to be moving to us and not seperate pictures). So art has contributed alot to science and should not be disgraded as use-less.

Sure -- but you're talking about *indirect*, *secondary*, *spin-off* benefits from art. If some artistic endeavors lead to derivative utilities, as you're listing here, so be it -- but that's *different* from the original artistic pursuits themselves.

It is a matter of ensuring the people in the large studios have the knowledge to build quality art.

Well, this is a different matter -- if you're concerned about the *supply of knowledge*, then that's a matter of Internet access and/or formal education.

JJM 777

18th September 2009, 19:58

*Your* approach sounds much more Stalinistic, or top-down, in its administration.
Possibly. I do believe that centralized planning is a good and effective way of leadership, but it must be democratic in a more real sense than "elections once in 5 years, and then the elected dictator can do what he wants for 5 years".

what if the widespread *demand* on a top-class artist or athlete's *schedule* was such that there was more demand for the person's time than the person had in their entire *lifetime* -- ?
Soccer has high demand in Mexico, they have solved it by building a stadium housing more than 100,000 people. In other countries the typical size of largest sport stadiums is 40,000 seats.

Popular artists with very high demand perform on these same stadiums where biggest sport events are arranged.

you're comparing something that's use-*ful*, carpentry, to something that's use-*less*, artwork. Artwork should not seek to serve a purpose
Well, we totally disagree here. Completely, 100%. I think that art is useful, when it seeks a professional purpose.

In Socialism we will have to find a democratic way of deciding, whose view will be followed by the society or community. I have the general impression that people want quality art, quality music and so on. Who wants to listen to a classical orchestra which cannot play with professional quality? Not me, and not many others either.

Or who wants to watch a movie that wasn't done with high professional skill? I often quit watching B-class movies after 5 minutes, because they are just too crap to watch.

Psy

18th September 2009, 20:12

I *still* think you're overly concerned with the *content* being produced -- as political people we should *not* address the *content* -- if there aren't enough movie production studios in existence to handle the backlog of requests for movie productions then that's a *political* issue and it would mean that the society would need to mobilize workers, at society's expense, to *** build more movie studios ***.

I'm not talking about content but structure. The point of art schools is not to tell artist what they should make art about but to tell artist how to construct art. This is far more easier to see in games then films, for example what ever game you are making it is a bad game if it is a buggy and has poor design, same with films and other forms of art regardless of the content of the art it will be of poor quality if it fails on a structural level (bad framing, bad transitions,ect).

So I'm not concerned with the content being produced but the structural quality of art being produced.

Sure -- but you're talking about *indirect*, *secondary*, *spin-off* benefits from art. If some artistic endeavors lead to derivative utilities, as you're listing here, so be it -- but that's *different* from the original artistic pursuits themselves.

My point is that science in general has a interest in the science of art to continue to evolve for stuff like the evolution of user interfaces. And we'd need them for icons in a post capitalist world, we'd probably want to get rid of the capitalist logos yet it would be kinda pointless to base all logos in a communist society on labor icons (it would be kinda stupid if every organization and product has a logo of star, hammer, wrench or something along those lines if we talking about a post revolutionary society).

Well, this is a different matter -- if you're concerned about the *supply of knowledge*, then that's a matter of Internet access and/or formal education.
It also a matter of ensuring the pre-conceptions of capitalist art is not reproduced in communist society. We don't want people looking at capitalist art and using that as an base to build their knowledge for making communist art mostly because capitalist art is a very restrictive art as capitalists is not concerened about art as a science but only conecerned about art as a busniess thus in capitalist art all art is only a commodity.

ckaihatsu

18th September 2009, 20:29

I'm not talking about content but structure. The point of art schools is not to tell artist what they should make art about but to tell artist how to construct art. This is far more easier to see in games then films, for example what ever game you are making it is a bad game if it is a buggy and has poor design, same with films and other forms of art regardless of the content of the art it will be of poor quality if it fails on a structural level (bad framing, bad transitions,ect).

So I'm not concerned with the content being produced but the structural quality of art being produced.

I still find your attitude to be quite patronizing -- don't you think that the typical serious artist or engineer would decide, on their own, to be cognizant of these practical issues?

My point is that science in general has a interest in the science of art to continue to evolve for stuff like the evolution of user interfaces. And we'd need them for icons in a post capitalist world, we'd probably want to get rid of the capitalist logos yet it would be kinda pointless to base all logos in a communist society on labor icons (it would be kinda stupid if every organization and product has a logo of star, hammer, wrench or something along those lines if we talking about a post revolutionary society).

It also a matter of ensuring the pre-conceptions of capitalist art is not reproduced in communist society. We don't want people looking at capitalist art and using that as an base to build their knowledge for making communist art mostly because capitalist art is a very restrictive art as capitalists is not concerened about art as a science but only conecerned about art as a busniess thus in capitalist art all art is only a commodity.

I think these matters would fall under the overall political culture that would prevail in a revolutionary society. Mass sentiments would most likely be similar to what you're outlining here, so these would be major societal / artistic influences on any burgeoning artist....

ckaihatsu

18th September 2009, 20:43

Possibly. I do believe that centralized planning is a good and effective way of leadership, but it must be democratic in a more real sense than "elections once in 5 years, and then the elected dictator can do what he wants for 5 years".

Yes, a factory soviet model would far surpass the most progressive bourgeois electoral process.

Soccer has high demand in Mexico, they have solved it by building a stadium housing more than 100,000 people. In other countries the typical size of largest sport stadiums is 40,000 seats.

Popular artists with very high demand perform on these same stadiums where biggest sport events are arranged.

(You're not *obligated* to address my point -- just so you know that you're *not* addressing it....)

Well, we totally disagree here. Completely, 100%. I think that art is useful, when it seeks a professional purpose.

No, the very function of fulfilling an objective purpose, as with commercial art, *kills* the inherent freedom that artistic avenues otherwise provide. We can call professional art "professional art", but it's *not* the same as art.

In Socialism we will have to find a democratic way of deciding, whose view will be followed by the society or community. I have the general impression that people want quality art, quality music and so on. Who wants to listen to a classical orchestra which cannot play with professional quality? Not me, and not many others either.

Or who wants to watch a movie that wasn't done with high professional skill? I often quit watching B-class movies after 5 minutes, because they are just too crap to watch.

As long as people are equipped with sufficient resources by the communist society to pursue their own trajectories of artistic or scientific endeavors, without regard to output or quality, then I support the creation of just such a communistic administration.

Consumers' preferences, as you're noting here, could form the basis for a formal economy *outside of* the baseline basic livelihood that would be provided humanely to *all* people, regardless of work status or personal output. (See my blog entry.)

Psy

18th September 2009, 20:55

I still find your attitude to be quite patronizing -- don't you think that the typical serious artist or engineer would decide, on their own, to be cognizant of these practical issues?

The major issue is a way for major studios to know the artist is qualified, not only would art schools be able to tell studios that the artist at least is was exposed to how to formally properly structure art but mean the artist would have a portfolio of art that shows the competency in that regard thus the studio won't have to waste resources testing them.

Remember capitalism has created tons of pseudo artists that only know how to create shovel "art" that is designed only to appeal to the lowest common denominator on the cheap (for example Uwe Boll), then you have artists that only the most basic and crude understanding of how to properly structure art as capitalists don't care thus capitalist has for decades allowed waves of semi-skilled artists into the field and a communist society would have to tell them they suck and need to go back to school for artistic training if they want to be real professional artist in the new communist society.

Art school being a perquisite means communist society at least can weed out pseudo artist from professional art to ensure that art maintains some kind of structural quality. Remember we talking art schools in a communist society so they won't be like schools now, we are talking simply about institutions that teach artists formal techniques, that doesn't mean the artists can only use those techniques but for artists to experiment it is good that they know formal techniques.

Same is true with engineers lets say there is self-thought electrical engineer in communist society, if they are good at some point they would pointed to formal training just to fill in the the gaps in their knowledge and to make easier for people to trust their skills.

I think these matters would fall under the overall political culture that would prevail in a revolutionary society. Mass sentiments would most likely be similar to what you're outlining here, so these would be major societal / artistic influences on any burgeoning artist....
True but formal training allows the studio to know they are qualified and gives the artists the knowledge required to make quality art.

ckaihatsu

18th September 2009, 21:28

Psy

18th September 2009, 21:48

Yeah, I think we're talking apples and oranges here -- I've never said I'm *against* formal art schooling -- let's just say that I'm a-artistic when it comes to the methodology and content issues you're raising.

I'm here for the *political* discussion, and that would deal with the provision of *infrastructure* in a post-capitalist society.

The infrastructure would be art schools leading preparing professional artist to large scale art studios. Large scale art studios would not be geared for personal art, smaller local studios would be looking after that. Larger studios would be run by regional central production plans with some coordinated projects across regions (thus across plans), to meet these plans they would not be staffed by just anyone but qualified artists, meaning an artist being fired by a large studio would be perfectly fair as the communist studios' goal would not be providing resources to artists but producing art worthy of society within a time frame and budget. So if a studio is looking for a film maker to depict the world revolution and they have the choice between the next Sergei Eisenstein or a Micheal Bay to head the project the logical choice would the the next Sergei Eisenstein (unless you want a film about the world revolution to be directed by someone that focuses on special effects and seriously lacks knowledge in the fundamentals of film making).

Искра

18th September 2009, 21:54

This is stupid thread. There would be no art in communism.

ckaihatsu

18th September 2009, 22:20

spiltteeth

18th September 2009, 22:37

I'll just point out that most fine art -weather painting, sculpture, or video- is usually at least partially subsidized by the state.
For instance, my favorite director is Guy Maddin, But not enough people dig his stuff to afford him the studios, actors, special effects. However, the canadian film committee gives him grants.
Are they 'correct' to give him grants and withhold grants from others? Right now "experts" decide who gets to be a full-time artists by giving out grants -except for pop art which is sold as mass commodity.

Psy

18th September 2009, 23:07

To me this seems like far-reaching speculation about how post-revolution liberated workers might decide to do their jobs.

I limit myself to discussions wherein I can *extrapolate* on large-scale, general tendencies into a worldwide proletarian revolution and beyond, based on fundamental principles from the revolution's politics. (For example we know that workers would control production at factories, therefore we could say that industrial production would be the source of their political power.)

I will remain neutral on the points you're raising because I don't think it's realistic to extrapolate *that* far, at *that* level of detail. I would rather be concerned with the *overall* worker-based control of society, especially in comparison to the bourgeoisie overthrown, and the *overall* political infrastructure set up that could be reasonably foreseen.

As far as assets go -- meaning movie production studios -- I would much rather see *additional capacity* provided, according to mass decision-making, in order to fulfill the greatest number of requests possible for the use of such infrastructure (as I've mentioned before in this thread.)

Concerns as to education, training, methodology, and quality are all *social* concerns and should be entirely *separate* from the *political* *provisioning of resources* for the fulfillment of artistic will.

Your approach really smacks of elitism, especially considering that a post-capitalist society would most likely be able to construct and provide *abundant* movie-making assets to a much larger population of movie-makers.
The issue is large scale production, sure you are going to have small scale production that would have large scale distribution (thanks to the Internet) and that would satisfy personal art and aspiring artists, yet you can't have personal art when it come to large scale art production where you talking about hundreds of workers just in the studio (then you have man hours in terms of electricity, water, sewerage, supplies and equipment) that is when the goal has to change to art being produced not for artists or even the fan base but for society as a whole as too much productive forces are being consumed.

There would still be large scale art as large scale art allows for grander projects due to the scale of the means of artistic production, yet you can't replicate this scale all over the place, for example the main lot of Warner Brothers Studios occupies over a kilometer of land (more land then most factories) and has a large work force of non-artists who are required just to keep the studios running.

You have the problem that this amount of centralization can't reproduced for every community but it allows for projects at a scale inconceivable for smaller studios. In my option the solution is not to and even try replicate the scale of these studios and use them for large scale projects and let smaller studios deal with what these studios simply can't because they are just so big.

When you have studio lots the size of a large town with more workers then even large car plants it is hard to justify just handing it over to unskilled artists.

ckaihatsu

19th September 2009, 02:23

The issue is large scale production, sure you are going to have small scale production that would have large scale distribution (thanks to the Internet) and that would satisfy personal art and aspiring artists, yet you can't have personal art when it come to large scale art production where you talking about hundreds of workers just in the studio (then you have man hours in terms of electricity, water, sewerage, supplies and equipment) that is when the goal has to change to art being produced not for artists or even the fan base but for society as a whole as too much productive forces are being consumed.

There would still be large scale art as large scale art allows for grander projects due to the scale of the means of artistic production, yet you can't replicate this scale all over the place, for example the main lot of Warner Brothers Studios occupies over a kilometer of land (more land then most factories) and has a large work force of non-artists who are required just to keep the studios running.

You have the problem that this amount of centralization can't reproduced for every community but it allows for projects at a scale inconceivable for smaller studios.

Well, thanks also to the Internet, the population of potential consumers would be *exactly the same* for major releases as it would be for aspiring auteurs -- in other words, *everyone* -- the only difference would be who signs up on which email notification list.

So the issues around large-scale productions are [1] assets (movie studio buildings, infrastructure, equipment), [2] resources (electricity, water, supplies, etc.) and [3] labor.

I submit to you, *again*, that a post-capitalist society should *politically prioritize* the making available of (now-collectivized) assets and resources to the general public, regardless of whether individuals work or not. Here you're only talking about *one* movie studio -- I would hope that a post-capitalist society would be able to *construct additional movie studios* so that long-term capacity for making large-scale productions can approximate the *demand* for such facilities from the grassroots.

Given that the assets only need to be built *once* (plus scheduled maintenance and improvements) and that resources can be provided with minimal local labor (electricity, water, sewage, supplies), the rest of the equation here falls onto what *labor* would be available for this-or-that production.

But let's step back just one step first -- how would a post-capitalist society determine *how many* movie studios to build in the first place? What yardstick, or method of determination, would be used, considering that there *are* ongoing upkeep costs for *any* facility, as you've pointed out?

And, once built, how would certain movie productions *get staffed* -- ? You've noted that they usually require *hundreds* of workers around the studio, as a norm.

I submit that the labor question could be handled in one of two ways -- either the work crew (for construction or movie productions) is entirely on a *volunteer* basis (and/or with personally accumulated labor credits), in which they would only need to secure a perfunctory "okay" on the merits of the work project from the larger communist administration, or else they would have to *politicize it* and appeal for the *funding* of needed labor credits from the larger communist economy / society.

Once a project is *politicized* it means that the larger society is asked to take an interest in it, with a *material commitment* to the project, in the form of labor credits. This *sponsorship* is what would allow the use of more *professionalized* labor, along the lines that you've been describing. Likewise the larger society would have more of a *professional* interest in the output of the (construction or production) project, and would most likely bring in certain professional-minded elements as advisors and consultants who would have certain professional standards in mind in terms of executing the project. This is where your described counsel, Psy, would most likely play a part.

In my option the solution is not to and even try replicate the scale of these studios and use them for large scale projects and let smaller studios deal with what these studios simply can't because they are just so big.

I'm still concerned that you aren't indicating an *expansion* of available capacity....

When you have studio lots the size of a large town with more workers then even large car plants it is hard to justify just handing it over to unskilled artists.

In a communist society *all* capacity must be made available on a equal basis to *everyone*, regardless of education, training, background, experience, or proclivities -- if capacity is limited I would *prefer* to see additional capacity *built*, but in the event of bottlenecking there could be the use of first-come-first-served, or the use of a lottery to determine the facility's schedule.

The only remaining question then is the labor question, and I've addressed that concern, above.

Psy

19th September 2009, 04:34

Well, thanks also to the Internet, the population of potential consumers would be *exactly the same* for major releases as it would be for aspiring auteurs -- in other words, *everyone* -- the only difference would be who signs up on which email notification list.

Not really, bandwidth is a issue just the of transmitting DVD quality video chokes ISPs, high definition video is just too large to currently effectively wildly distribute then you have the fact theaters have a much better setup then even home theaters meaning artists would still love getting theatrical realeases with the much higher resolution then even high defition TVs and sound systems unmatched by anything aviable for home use.

Also from a communist perspective building high quality movie theaters give far more utility then home theater systems as theater equipment would get far more use.

So the issues around large-scale productions are [1] assets (movie studio buildings, infrastructure, equipment), [2] resources (electricity, water, supplies, etc.) and [3] labor.

I submit to you, *again*, that a post-capitalist society should *politically prioritize* the making available of (now-collectivized) assets and resources to the general public, regardless of whether individuals work or not. Here you're only talking about *one* movie studio -- I would hope that a post-capitalist society would be able to *construct additional movie studios* so that long-term capacity for making large-scale productions can approximate the *demand* for such facilities from the grassroots.

The concern with large scale projects is not really one of quanity but one of quality. It is a good thing for artists leaving the audience wanting more meaning it is better for studios to sacrifice quanity of releases for a higer average quality of releases.

Given that the assets only need to be built *once* (plus scheduled maintenance and improvements) and that resources can be provided with minimal local labor (electricity, water, sewage, supplies), the rest of the equation here falls onto what *labor* would be available for this-or-that production.

But let's step back just one step first -- how would a post-capitalist society determine *how many* movie studios to build in the first place? What yardstick, or method of determination, would be used, considering that there *are* ongoing upkeep costs for *any* facility, as you've pointed out?

Based on the pool of professional artists and other priorities. Basically if the pool of professional artists can support more quality productions with more studios you build them if there is nothing better to do with the resources.

On the side of smaller studios simply the average number of people that uses them in a year as unlike larger studios they would simply be providing means of artisic expression not trying to produce quality works.

And, once built, how would certain movie productions *get staffed* -- ? You've noted that they usually require *hundreds* of workers around the studio, as a norm.

Studio's get staffed no movie productions, it would be up the workers councial running the studio to staff it so they can meet production plans.

I submit that the labor question could be handled in one of two ways -- either the work crew (for construction or movie productions) is entirely on a *volunteer* basis (and/or with personally accumulated labor credits), in which they would only need to secure a perfunctory "okay" on the merits of the work project from the larger communist administration, or else they would have to *politicize it* and appeal for the *funding* of needed labor credits from the larger communist economy / society.

It really would be hard politicizing individual projects from a studio think of the large amount of spoilers.

Once a project is *politicized* it means that the larger society is asked to take an interest in it, with a *material commitment* to the project, in the form of labor credits. This *sponsorship* is what would allow the use of more *professionalized* labor, along the lines that you've been describing. Likewise the larger society would have more of a *professional* interest in the output of the (construction or production) project, and would most likely bring in certain professional-minded elements as advisors and consultants who would have certain professional standards in mind in terms of executing the project. This is where your described counsel, Psy, would most likely play a part.

True but such councils would still be grounded by the politized general production plan.

I'm still concerned that you aren't indicating an *expansion* of available capacity....

Because my concern is quality not quanitity.

In a communist society *all* capacity must be made available on a equal basis to *everyone*, regardless of education, training, background, experience, or proclivities -- if capacity is limited I would *prefer* to see additional capacity *built*, but in the event of bottlenecking there could be the use of first-come-first-served, or the use of a lottery to determine the facility's schedule.

That assume the goal is produce enough means of production to satifiy everyone that wants to partake in production rather them focusing on producing enough utility for everyone that want to consume the fruits of production.

Large scale studios being limmited to professional artists doesn't prevent the works of said studios being enjoyed by everyone and local studio allowing for personal artistic expression means large studios can focus simply on providing the utility of well constructed workers.

ckaihatsu

19th September 2009, 13:39

Not really, bandwidth is a issue just the of transmitting DVD quality video chokes ISPs, high definition video is just too large to currently effectively wildly distribute then you have the fact theaters have a much better setup then even home theaters meaning artists would still love getting theatrical realeases with the much higher resolution then even high defition TVs and sound systems unmatched by anything aviable for home use.

Also from a communist perspective building high quality movie theaters give far more utility then home theater systems as theater equipment would get far more use.

I think we're really limiting ourselves by getting caught up in *current* technological limitations. Certainly by the time a revolutionary working class has taken power technology will have overcome these limitations, or else the revolutionary workforce could do it themselves.

I'm still concerned that you aren't indicating an *expansion* of available capacity....

Because my concern is quality not quanitity.

In a communist society *all* capacity must be made available on a equal basis to *everyone*, regardless of education, training, background, experience, or proclivities -- if capacity is limited I would *prefer* to see additional capacity *built*, but in the event of bottlenecking there could be the use of first-come-first-served, or the use of a lottery to determine the facility's schedule.

That assume the goal is produce enough means of production to satifiy everyone that wants to partake in production rather them focusing on producing enough utility for everyone that want to consume the fruits of production.

Large scale studios being limmited to professional artists doesn't prevent the works of said studios being enjoyed by everyone and local studio allowing for personal artistic expression means large studios can focus simply on providing the utility of well constructed workers.

The concern with large scale projects is not really one of quanity but one of quality. It is a good thing for artists leaving the audience wanting more meaning it is better for studios to sacrifice quanity of releases for a higer average quality of releases.

I can appreciate this point, but I'm still concerned about elitism here -- it's easy for *anyone* to simply say, "I want only the best," but when it comes to *providing* the *means* for people to *become their best* that's where society falls short. To me the *point* of a revolution is to *empower* and *enable* the average person to reach the heights they want, without any artificial hindrances coming from the larger economy.

Also consider the saying that "the wider the base, the taller the peak" -- this means, of course, that it takes a *social investment* in *all* people to realize a lesser number of high achievements. Our society, as limited as it is, at least still retains the norm of an institution of *public education*. This is a compact between society and its future self by taking an interest in those who have a *zero* track record. If society just waited around to pluck off the "winners" without providing an education upfront for everyone we'd all be much worse off for it.

If a workers' revolution frees up vast assets and resources, including major movie production studios, I would rather let an amateur have a free run with the facilities than to let the facilities go *unused* for even a day.

[If] the pool of professional artists can support more quality productions with more studios you build them if there is nothing better to do with the resources.

Well, as I noted, the use of large-scale collectivized resources would give the larger communist society more of a *political stake* in the work project, whether for the construction of new studios or for the production of new movies -- I tend to think that the 'quantity v. quality' issue would work itself out as the social and the political realms interface with each other....

On the side of smaller studios simply the average number of people that uses them in a year as unlike larger studios they would simply be providing means of artisic expression not trying to produce quality works.

Studio's get staffed no movie productions, it would be up the workers councial running the studio to staff it so they can meet production plans.

These are agreeable.

I submit that the labor question could be handled in one of two ways -- either the work crew (for construction or movie productions) is entirely on a *volunteer* basis (and/or with personally accumulated labor credits), in which they would only need to secure a perfunctory "okay" on the merits of the work project from the larger communist administration, or else they would have to *politicize it* and appeal for the *funding* of needed labor credits from the larger communist economy / society.

It really would be hard politicizing individual projects from a studio think of the large amount of spoilers.

I don't understand what you're saying here, Psy -- would you rephrase it?

Once a project is *politicized* it means that the larger society is asked to take an interest in it, with a *material commitment* to the project, in the form of labor credits. This *sponsorship* is what would allow the use of more *professionalized* labor, along the lines that you've been describing. Likewise the larger society would have more of a *professional* interest in the output of the (construction or production) project, and would most likely bring in certain professional-minded elements as advisors and consultants who would have certain professional standards in mind in terms of executing the project. This is where your described counsel, Psy, would most likely play a part.

True but such councils would still be grounded by the politized general production plan.

I said "counsel", not "council", Psy -- that means "advice", not "worker organization". But I think we're in agreement on this point.

ckaihatsu

19th September 2009, 14:00

Studio's get staffed no movie productions, it would be up the workers councial running the studio to staff it so they can meet production plans.

I have to add here that I would be concerned with this arrangement of permanent or semi-permanent workers at a particular location (asset). It smacks of syndicalism, which could be problematic for the production of a much-wanted movie.

There might even be an ongoing dialectic, or tension, here, perpetually -- the larger society would have an interest in grouping a particular arrangement of a workforce around each individual *project* (especially for movie productions), whereas the workforce would have an interest in continuous work and would want some permanence in relation to the fixed asset, or movie production studio.

So we might very well see the continuation of a certain producer-consumer conflict, around the point of production, even well after capitalism has been overthrown -- the major difference, though, of course, would be that a communist workforce could not be economically *exploited*, as is currently happening, every hour of every day.

JJM 777

19th September 2009, 14:28

In a communist society *all* capacity must be made available on a equal basis to *everyone*, regardless of education, training, background, experience, or proclivities -- if capacity is limited I would *prefer* to see additional capacity *built*, but in the event of bottlenecking there could be the use of first-come-first-served, or the use of a lottery to determine the facility's schedule.
This utopia doesn't function in real life. Or if it somehow would "function", it would be very ineffective and unproductive, leading to very low output (and thus a very low standard of living), compared to effective centralized planning of the material resources and labour force.

Everywhere in *high-tech* industry (notice the word in *asterisks*, it makes a big difference between high standard of living and low standard of living) the working tools are generally very expensive, and potentially dangerous or easily broken, or at least very unproductive, in unskilled hands.

If we want to produce medicine, fabrics, plastics, refine oil, or create any other raw material, we need a very expensive factory. And we cannot let the factory be used by "anyone who wants to do something with it". Only a few experts could be entrusted with producing any medicine or other material which is intended for medical use of humans -- unless you have nothing against a few people dying after tasting the strange cookings of "the general public, for whose perusal the medicine factory was given by random lottery".

Practically everything in medical services costs huge sums, the complex instruments. They are scarce resources, and lethally dangerous in use of anyone else than highly skilled experts. The general public has nothing to do with any highly specialized medical instrument, or with any chemical laboratory either.

ckaihatsu

19th September 2009, 14:40

You're misunderstanding the model I'm putting forth, *plus* there's no need to be insulting, as you're being.

You're forgetting that the workers at a particular workplace would have an interest in having a permanent presence there -- while the workplace's assets would be under a common, communist administration, there would be nothing to preclude a group of workers from being the "local crew" and building a reputation around the area for being the "go-to workers".

The larger administration would always retain veto power over any particular local workforce, but in practice there would probably be an ongoing social dynamic that would support some kind of ongoing worker occupation, with attendant education and apprenticeship programs.

Revy

19th September 2009, 15:13

The material conditions will allow for art to become more readily available as a means of self-expression. It will not be imposed by "cultural institutions", it will spring forth organically from the minds of individuals, and groups within society.

Teach a person to paint, sing, or write, you still haven't taught them art. Because you cannot.

Psy

19th September 2009, 15:48

I think we're really limiting ourselves by getting caught up in *current* technological limitations. Certainly by the time a revolutionary working class has taken power technology will have overcome these limitations, or else the revolutionary workforce could do it themselves.

These limitations are very large, the size of a monitors are probably are always be far smaller then the size of theater screens, the sound systems of PCs probably always behind those of theaters. Even if technology advances to allow PCs to be match the theater experience, technology would also advance the theater experience for example 70mmx45mm IMax films being replaced with digital film of equal quality (Digital IMax failed to match its optical counterpart) would make IMax theaters far more practical on a large scale but still impractical for homes due to 22 x 16.1 meter screens required, meaning such technology would allow film makers to give theatergoer a far more emersive experince then that of home theaters due to the very large screen showing very high definition video married with a very high fiedlity surround sound all far too bulky for home theaters.

I can appreciate this point, but I'm still concerned about elitism here -- it's easy for *anyone* to simply say, "I want only the best," but when it comes to *providing* the *means* for people to *become their best* that's where society falls short. To me the *point* of a revolution is to *empower* and *enable* the average person to reach the heights they want, without any artificial hindrances coming from the larger economy.

Also consider the saying that "the wider the base, the taller the peak" -- this means, of course, that it takes a *social investment* in *all* people to realize a lesser number of high achievements. Our society, as limited as it is, at least still retains the norm of an institution of *public education*. This is a compact between society and its future self by taking an interest in those who have a *zero* track record. If society just waited around to pluck off the "winners" without providing an education upfront for everyone we'd all be much worse off for it.

Notice I said before of art school making professional artists and that I'm all for expanding the capacity of profesional studios if there is large enough pool of professional artists to warrent it and nothing better to use the resources on.

If a workers' revolution frees up vast assets and resources, including major movie production studios, I would rather let an amateur have a free run with the facilities than to let the facilities go *unused* for even a day.

You are assuming large movie studio would be left unused because of a shortage of professionals.

I don't understand what you're saying here, Psy -- would you rephrase it?

Politizing works in production won't work for art as politizing them would bring spoliers, meaning society won't be debating which script to turn into a movie rather debating the perfomance of studios based on what it released not what it is currently working on.

I have to add here that I would be concerned with this arrangement of permanent or semi-permanent workers at a particular location (asset). It smacks of syndicalism, which could be problematic for the production of a much-wanted movie.

There might even be an ongoing dialectic, or tension, here, perpetually -- the larger society would have an interest in grouping a particular arrangement of a workforce around each individual *project* (especially for movie productions), whereas the workforce would have an interest in continuous work and would want some permanence in relation to the fixed asset, or movie production studio.

So we might very well see the continuation of a certain producer-consumer conflict, around the point of production, even well after capitalism has been overthrown -- the major difference, though, of course, would be that a communist workforce could not be economically *exploited*, as is currently happening, every hour of every day.

You have to remember we are talking about a council that controls only one studio and has no power to stop anyone from moving to other studios, if a director want to work for another studio there is really nothing a communist studio can do to stop them if they are in-between projects (if they are working on a project they may be able to something like appeal to a regional council or something to delay the transfer of director till after project is done). This also means there is nothing a studio can do if another studio is working on a similar project as copyright would be long gone.

ckaihatsu

19th September 2009, 16:30

I'm not understanding your point regarding the technology of movie showings -- either we're talking about distribution to homes via the Internet or else it's distribution to movie theaters for better-resolution projection. What is your *point*, again?

Notice I said before of art school making professional artists and that I'm all for expanding the capacity of profesional studios if there is large enough pool of professional artists to warrent it and nothing better to use the resources on.

You are assuming large movie studio would be left unused because of a shortage of professionals.

Well, this all *depends* on what the workers of a communist society *decide*, doesn't it? This is why it's impractical to get into too much speculative detail regarding these matters because either you or I, or the both of us, will have to resort to pure assumptions as to how much capacity is built and how it is utilized.

Politizing works in production won't work for art as politizing them would bring spoliers, meaning society won't be debating which script to turn into a movie rather debating the perfomance of studios based on what it released not what it is currently working on.

The *point* of a communist society is that those who wish to take on decision-making roles can do so -- certainly not *all* people need to be involved in the political debates regarding *every* *single* movie script that requests communal resources -- I suppose we can say that the political *hazards* of getting involved around the politics of a particular production are that one will ruin one's enjoyment of the resulting movie once it's made. Certainly the "spoilers" in a movie script should not deter the entire political process...(!)

Also, we should not encourage the conception of studios in a post-commodity society to be *fixtures* of a commercial landscape, the way they are now -- rather we would have a society that can lend the best, most appropriate, self-selected elements to whatever project or task needs to get done. I'd imagine that projects would *emerge* from a positive confluence of labor (and asset and resource) elements, with far fewer institutional legacy burdens to hold up....

You have to remember we are talking about a council that controls only one studio and has no power to stop anyone from moving to other studios, if a director want to work for another studio there is really nothing a communist studio can do to stop them if they are in-between projects (if they are working on a project they may be able to something like appeal to a regional council or something to delay the transfer of director till after project is done). This also means there is nothing a studio can do if another studio is working on a similar project as copyright would be long gone.

Agreed.

Psy

19th September 2009, 19:49

I'm not understanding your point regarding the technology of movie showings -- either we're talking about distribution to homes via the Internet or else it's distribution to movie theaters for better-resolution projection. What is your *point*, again?

That the Internet does not make theaters obsolete, nor does home theaters. Theaters would still exist for grander films with large production quality. For example if the next Sergei Eisenstein is making a movie on the world revolution you don't tell them to make it for the Internet you tell to make it for the most impressive theater platform available at the time and transfer it to lesser video formats later.

Conversely you don't tell the amateur film student to make a film for theaters but for the Internet, or TV. There is little point in amateur film students working with high production values till they master the fundamentals.

Meaning film artists would work up to doing theatrical releases, being allowed to make theatrical releases would mean communist society would trust their skills to at least make a technically sound film. Meaning people going to theaters can trust that the film they are about to watch is at the very least competent.

Well, this all *depends* on what the workers of a communist society *decide*, doesn't it? This is why it's impractical to get into too much speculative detail regarding these matters because either you or I, or the both of us, will have to resort to pure assumptions as to how much capacity is built and how it is utilized.

Right but I'm trying to explain that there would be different infrastructures for artists expressing themselves and for competent artists producing quality work.

The *point* of a communist society is that those who wish to take on decision-making roles can do so -- certainly not *all* people need to be involved in the political debates regarding *every* *single* movie script that requests communal resources -- I suppose we can say that the political *hazards* of getting involved around the politics of a particular production are that one will ruin one's enjoyment of the resulting movie once it's made. Certainly the "spoilers" in a movie script should not deter the entire political process...(!)

You also have to factor in people being inpatient for the production process, far better to plan based on the previous production cycle and trust talent/skills of the artist and workers of the studio.

This is why having qualified artists in such studios make more sense as you don't have to micromanage them but simply tell them what they have to work with and roughly when it is due then let them work on their own only periodically having draft screenings to get peer review during production.

ckaihatsu

19th September 2009, 20:54

That the Internet does not make theaters obsolete, nor does home theaters. Theaters would still exist for grander films with large production quality. For example if the next Sergei Eisenstein is making a movie on the world revolution you don't tell them to make it for the Internet you tell to make it for the most impressive theater platform available at the time and transfer it to lesser video formats later.

Conversely you don't tell the amateur film student to make a film for theaters but for the Internet, or TV. There is little point in amateur film students working with high production values till they master the fundamentals.

Meaning film artists would work up to doing theatrical releases, being allowed to make theatrical releases would mean communist society would trust their skills to at least make a technically sound film. Meaning people going to theaters can trust that the film they are about to watch is at the very least competent.

Right but I'm trying to explain that there would be different infrastructures for artists expressing themselves and for competent artists producing quality work.

You also have to factor in people being inpatient for the production process, far better to plan based on the previous production cycle and trust talent/skills of the artist and workers of the studio.

This is why having qualified artists in such studios make more sense as you don't have to micromanage them but simply tell them what they have to work with and roughly when it is due then let them work on their own only periodically having draft screenings to get peer review during production.

Duly noted as *social* conventions.

Psy

21st September 2009, 15:39

Duly noted as *social* conventions.

A bit more then just social conventions as schooling is a largely debated in dealing with post capitalist societies as it schooling is seen as a institution that allows capitalism to reproduce itself by indoctrinating the proletariat and they are right but we also have people that fail to see schooling having any other role then indoctrination.

Take a look at Stancel post

The material conditions will allow for art to become more readily available as a means of self-expression. It will not be imposed by "cultural institutions", it will spring forth organically from the minds of individuals, and groups within society.

Teach a person to paint, sing, or write, you still haven't taught them art. Because you cannot.
Notice in Stancel mind art schools meant imposing on the creative side of art rather then teaching the technical side of art. A communist art instructer wouldn't "correct" the idea the artist wants to express instead of correct the structure of the art so the idea the artist want to get across gets across properly. We also probably wouldn't have the problem of schools not being fun, as the whole existance would only exist to teach what people want to learning with less focus on testing and more on giving competency. Meaning a art school wouldn't just throw a exam at students, their "exam" would be a project to show what they were taught but they would be able to help each other on these projects since in the working world co-workers would help each other out as well. Meaning if Johnny (fictional student just for example) forgot how to show a compression of time Jeremy (see Johnny) would be able to help Johnny out and Johnny asking for help shows competency in itself.

This extends to large studio, the idea of staffing large studios with qualified artist is not to deny ideas from being produced but to ensure a level of quality from then from a technical stand point.

Same would be true for other skilled jobs, schools would exist to ensure a level of competency of skilled workers, their role of indocrination would be dropped and they would only function would be teaching skills. I even high doubt in a communist society you'd have offical Marxist classes as there really wouldn't be a point knowing Marx would really be a production skill (art is a production skill as one produces art) and no need for society to test competency in Marx (so students probably wouldn't have to take test on Marx) and Marx would be tought outside of schools (TV, Internet, Books, Films, Comics, ect)

ckaihatsu

21st September 2009, 16:29

A bit more then just social conventions as schooling is a largely debated in dealing with post capitalist societies as it schooling is seen as a institution that allows capitalism to reproduce itself by indoctrinating the proletariat and they are right but we also have people that fail to see schooling having any other role then indoctrination.

Since you're restricting yourself to the issue of *technical* training in the creation of art, it could very well be that *this* aspect of education would go *unchanged* through a revolutionary upheaval.

Take a look at Stancel post
Notice in Stancel mind art schools meant imposing on the creative side of art rather then teaching the technical side of art. A communist art instructer wouldn't "correct" the idea the artist wants to express instead of correct the structure of the art so the idea the artist want to get across gets across properly. We also probably wouldn't have the problem of schools not being fun, as the whole existance would only exist to teach what people want to learning with less focus on testing and more on giving competency. Meaning a art school wouldn't just throw a exam at students, their "exam" would be a project to show what they were taught but they would be able to help each other on these projects since in the working world co-workers would help each other out as well. Meaning if Johnny (fictional student just for example) forgot how to show a compression of time Jeremy (see Johnny) would be able to help Johnny out and Johnny asking for help shows competency in itself.

What you describe is certainly being done *today*, and could become a more widespread pedagogy in a period that is even *more* enlightened than our own.

This extends to large studio, the idea of staffing large studios with qualified artist is not to deny ideas from being produced but to ensure a level of quality from then from a technical stand point.

Same would be true for other skilled jobs, schools would exist to ensure a level of competency of skilled workers, their role of indocrination would be dropped and they would only function would be teaching skills. I even high doubt in a communist society you'd have offical Marxist classes as there really wouldn't be a point knowing Marx would really be a production skill (art is a production skill as one produces art) and no need for society to test competency in Marx (so students probably wouldn't have to take test on Marx) and Marx would be tought outside of schools (TV, Internet, Books, Films, Comics, ect)

Once again we're placing ourselves on the gradient that incorporates aspects of the social along with aspects of the political.

I agree that society as a whole would have an interest in upholding certain standards, but, on the other hand, the *artist* would have an interest in giving free rein to self-initiated creative impulses without any regard for what has come before.

This dialectic between the individual and society is just as much of a dynamic as is the one between societal conventions and the overarching *political realm* of material (assets and resources) administration.

You're obviously partial to the societal aspects, while I will readily advance the argument that mass *political* sentiments in a post-scarcity world could very well be about *increasing capacity* in an almost boundless manner, so as to provide to humanity what has been continuously denied to it -- free access to the means for fulfilling self-initiated creative impulses.

At the same time I think the revolutionary generation would very much want to include its epic accomplishments in the history books -- which would also be objectively valid history -- and so the youth *would* be required to understand the import of the newly created world that they are growing up in.

I continue to be concerned about your focus on societal conventions, Psy, and would hope that you consider the more-macro, political-material forces at work, as well as the more-micro, individualistic ones as well.

Psy

21st September 2009, 17:13

I agree that society as a whole would have an interest in upholding certain standards, but, on the other hand, the *artist* would have an interest in giving free rein to self-initiated creative impulses without any regard for what has come before.

True but it is better for artist to know what came before even when they are trying to break away from what came before, just like it is a good idea for us to understand capitalism (and pre-capitalist societies) before trying to come up with a post capitalist society.

You're obviously partial to the societal aspects, while I will readily advance the argument that mass *political* sentiments in a post-scarcity world could very well be about *increasing capacity* in an almost boundless manner, so as to provide to humanity what has been continuously denied to it -- free access to the means for fulfilling self-initiated creative impulses.

The laws of physics pretty much rule out boundless production of utility since the universe is finite, it doesn't make much sense to solve capitalism's inherent contradictions for to run smack into its external contradictions (like perpetual growth is impossible).

Thankfully we don't need boundless production to get a abundance of utility.

At the same time I think the revolutionary generation would very much want to include its epic accomplishments in the history books -- which would also be objectively valid history -- and so the youth *would* be required to understand the import of the newly created world that they are growing up in.

The school system is inappropriate for teaching history, why make kids learn about history from text books when they can be taught far better through art, for example even comic books would be a better medium to teach about the Spanish Civil war then text books then you have moving pictures (video) and interactive entertainments (games) that would a even better medium, better yet using all these mediums would make it easy for the masses to learn about the Spanish Civil war far better then text books all of which would be learning outside of schools.

ckaihatsu

21st September 2009, 17:38

True but it is better for artist to know what came before even when they are trying to break away from what came before, just like it is a good idea for us to understand capitalism (and pre-capitalist societies) before trying to come up with a post capitalist society.

But that *decision* would be up to the artist -- society can only *suggest*, *recommend*, and *provide*, at best.... ("You can lead a horse to water, but you can't make it drink.")

The laws of physics pretty much rule out boundless production of utility since the universe is finite, it doesn't make much sense to solve capitalism's inherent contradictions for to run smack into its external contradictions (like perpetual growth is impossible).

You're being disingenuous here and you're avoiding my point.

Thankfully we don't need boundless production to get a abundance of utility.

And I maintain that *that* would be the prevailing mass political sentiment after a revolution -- developing an abundance of utility.

The school system is inappropriate for teaching history, why make kids learn about history from text books when they can be taught far better through art, for example even comic books would be a better medium to teach about the Spanish Civil war then text books then you have moving pictures (video) and interactive entertainments (games) that would a even better medium, better yet using all these mediums would make it easy for the masses to learn about the Spanish Civil war far better then text books all of which would be learning outside of schools.

Education is a complex process and there are a wide variety of approaches that can work (or not work) depending on the individual, their interests, their motivations, the learning environment, and so on.

The school system, as it is, does a lot, but the rule of thumb is that the smaller the class size the more individual attention each student can receive, and that translates into a more-customized learning experience for all.

I note that you seem to be more concerned with the Spanish Civil War than any other historical topic -- are you more of an anarchist, then, despite your use of the hammer-and-sickle as your avatar?

Psy

21st September 2009, 21:50

ckaihatsu

21st September 2009, 22:16

But that *decision* would be up to the artist -- society can only *suggest*, *recommend*, and *provide*, at best.... ("You can lead a horse to water, but you can't make it drink.")

True but you can just give a unskilled workers means of production and expect them to be as productive as skilled workers. The point of schooling artist is to make them skilled artists, there is no point in artist reinventing techniques it is a waste of their time.

We're talking about art / artists in two different contexts here -- I'm using the definition of the self-motivated, self-initiated creative, whereas you're continuing to emphasize the societal aspects of education and training. It's apples and oranges and we're going around in circles here.

You also should *stop* admixing production-based activities with *non-production-based*, or artistic endeavors -- the goals for each are *very different* and they should *not* be considered to be in the same class.

A work of art is the unique result of a unique temperament. Its beauty comes from the fact that the author is what he is. It has nothing to do with the fact that other people want what they want. Indeed, the moment that an artist takes notice of what other people want, and tries to supply the demand, he ceases to be an artist, and becomes a dull or an amusing craftsman, an honest or a dishonest tradesman. He has no further claim to be considered as an artist. Art is the most intense mode of Individualism that the world has known. I am inclined to say that it is the only real mode of Individualism that the world has known.

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

We can't give large production values for everyone's own personal artistic project and we can't afford the inefficiency of having unskilled artists slowing down skilled artist working on large projects. Why should artist working on a major project take time to teach you if you are so unskilled you are not really contributing to the project? If they wanted to teach artists they would be teaching artists and not working a major project.

From a political standpoint it would be a mess you have class in workplaces of skill and unskilled workers.

This all depends on *capacity*, doesn't it? You're assuming a lot of parameters here. (And your assumptions lead you to a more elitist-sounding position, one that is practically bourgeois.)

It is also more democratic to have such subjects passively thought that was society is not saying what is important, it is one thing saying artists or engineers need to learn apolitical stuff (for example 1+1=2 is not political) but totally different when you are saying everyone has to learn political stuff and history is very political.

Psy, we *all* *live* and *exist* in a *swirling sea* of politics -- these are the currents of human intentions that undergird all human activity. We can't cleanly separate political content from history, or the teaching of history, any better than we can from "apolitical" subjects like math or science. The mere *emphasis* on technical subjects -- which is the trend in education -- is the political showing of *contempt* for the more-humanistic, self-reflective path of inquiry through the realm of human intentions and interactions, including politics.

We, as revolutionaries, should *emphasize* in the public sphere, as we are here, the *discussion* and *argumentation* for *our* side in the class struggle. To do less is to do the *revolution* a disservice.

You do know the POUM was part the Spanish Civil War, besides it is a major historical event.

Certainly.

Psy

21st September 2009, 23:01

We're talking about art / artists in two different contexts here -- I'm using the definition of the self-motivated, self-initiated creative, whereas you're continuing to emphasize the societal aspects of education and training. It's apples and oranges and we're going around in circles here.

Yet self-motivated, self-initiated artist also benefit from formal artist education. Lets take a children pictures, it is self-expression but still crap they are kids thus lack experience. Now one doesn't say art is simply art is crap we use constructive criticism to point out where they need improve but my point is that is ass the skill of artist increases so does the quality of their art will they competent enough that other factors become more important.

You also should *stop* admixing production-based activities with *non-production-based*, or artistic endeavors -- the goals for each are *very different* and they should *not* be considered to be in the same class.

But large scale artistic production has the same goal as any other production under communism. Like I said before a studio's job under communism would not be a place for artist to express themselves but to produce art to used by society.

This all depends on *capacity*, doesn't it? You're assuming a lot of parameters here. (And your assumptions lead you to a more elitist-sounding position, one that is practically bourgeois.)

It is not a capacity issue, it is a time issue. Time artists spend on baby sitting unskilled artist is time they are not spending on the project meaning either they get less done or have to spend more hours at the studio. For example if they get their work done early they might be able to punch out early because unskilled workers need their supervision, add a worker's council and you have skilled artist being a hostile group against the unskilled artists.

It is due to the environment of the studio being a place to produce quality work, in a learning environment teachers wouldn't hostile to them because the students are not slowing them down as their goal is radically different then the artists making works.

Psy, we *all* *live* and *exist* in a *swirling sea* of politics -- these are the currents of human intentions that undergird all human activity. We can't cleanly separate political content from history, or the teaching of history, any better than we can from "apolitical" subjects like math or science. The mere *emphasis* on technical subjects -- which is the trend in education -- is the political showing of *contempt* for the more-humanistic, self-reflective path of inquiry through the realm of human intentions and interactions, including politics.

We, as revolutionaries, should *emphasize* in the public sphere, as we are here, the *discussion* and *argumentation* for *our* side in the class struggle. To do less is to do the *revolution* a disservice.

The difference is schooling has authority, this is fine when dealing with technical issues, for humanistic subjects this authority is a hindrance. It also becomes a moot point when it is much more effective to get people to think about such subjects outside classrooms.

ckaihatsu

21st September 2009, 23:54

Yet self-motivated, self-initiated artist also benefit from formal artist education. Lets take a children pictures, it is self-expression but still crap they are kids thus lack experience. Now one doesn't say art is simply art is crap we use constructive criticism to point out where they need improve but my point is that is ass the skill of artist increases so does the quality of their art will they competent enough that other factors become more important.

But large scale artistic production has the same goal as any other production under communism. Like I said before a studio's job under communism would not be a place for artist to express themselves but to produce art to used by society.

It is not a capacity issue, it is a time issue. Time artists spend on baby sitting unskilled artist is time they are not spending on the project meaning either they get less done or have to spend more hours at the studio. For example if they get their work done early they might be able to punch out early because unskilled workers need their supervision, add a worker's council and you have skilled artist being a hostile group against the unskilled artists.

It is due to the environment of the studio being a place to produce quality work, in a learning environment teachers wouldn't hostile to them because the students are not slowing them down as their goal is radically different then the artists making works.

I *don't* disagree with you on the political-societal aspects of production, Psy, whether they be for materials production or artistic production -- we've been going around in circles here because of a difference of *emphasis* on either of our parts -- I've been pointing out the importance of *self-motivation* whereas you've been emphasizing the benefits of learning from accumulated past experience, or *knowledge*.

The difference is schooling has authority, this is fine when dealing with technical issues, for humanistic subjects this authority is a hindrance. It also becomes a moot point when it is much more effective to get people to think about such subjects outside classrooms.

I don't think we can *avoid* authority and authority-related dynamics, as you're suggesting here -- just because certain humanities subjects, like history, are excluded from a curriculum doesn't mean that the prevailing *authority* attached to such subjects will be avoided.

You've heard that the "ruling ideas of a time are the ideas of its ruling class" -- ? This will be true no matter *what* the formal institutions of transmission are -- if the schools abstain from providing a more-open forum for reflection on humanities themes then the authoritative viewpoint will *certainly* be transmitted through the mass media nonetheless, not to mention the overall balance of power that people experience throughout their lifetimes.

Schools can at least give students *practice* in dealing with humanities, political, business, and technical topics *before* having to be responsible for the same in their adult lives.

Psy

22nd September 2009, 00:32

I *don't* disagree with you on the political-societal aspects of production, Psy, whether they be for materials production or artistic production -- we've been going around in circles here because of a difference of *emphasis* on either of our parts -- I've been pointing out the importance of *self-motivation* whereas you've been emphasizing the benefits of learning from accumulated past experience, or *knowledge*.

Because without the skills self-motivation is pointless. Again looks at kids drawing they are very self-motivated but their lack of skills is very apparent, while they may eventually learn these skills on their own it is a statistical improbability and the most probable way for them to greatly improve is through art education.

For example if a kid's is struggling with proportions in their picture is far better to teach established techniques them to just sit back and let the kid learn learn on their own as most likely they wouldn't even have a clue of where to start as they are looking at the problem from the surface (the finished product) and not looking at the problem structurally (for example examining the shapes the make up the objects they are trying to draw).

I don't think we can *avoid* authority and authority-related dynamics, as you're suggesting here -- just because certain humanities subjects, like history, are excluded from a curriculum doesn't mean that the prevailing *authority* attached to such subjects will be avoided.

You've heard that the "ruling ideas of a time are the ideas of its ruling class" -- ? This will be true no matter *what* the formal institutions of transmission are -- if the schools abstain from providing a more-open forum for reflection on humanities themes then the authoritative viewpoint will *certainly* be transmitted through the mass media nonetheless, not to mention the overall balance of power that people experience throughout their lifetimes.

Schools can at least give students *practice* in dealing with humanities, political, business, and technical topics *before* having to be responsible for the same in their adult lives.
And what justification would you give for students to sit down and learn history and such? At least with art, engineering and such the justification is that with the knowledge being taught to the student would be able to bring their ideas into the material world as it would be knowledge directly useful for them to produce utility.

ckaihatsu

22nd September 2009, 00:49

Psy, I'm getting the sense here that you're being argumentative. You've been straying from a *political*-oriented discussion and have been repeating yourself numerous times on a tangential topic.

Because without the skills self-motivation is pointless.

And without self-motivation skills are useless.

Again looks at kids drawing they are very self-motivated but their lack of skills is very apparent, while they may eventually learn these skills on their own it is a statistical improbability and the most probable way for them to greatly improve is through art education.

For example if a kid's is struggling with proportions in their picture is far better to teach established techniques them to just sit back and let the kid learn learn on their own as most likely they wouldn't even have a clue of where to start as they are looking at the problem from the surface (the finished product) and not looking at the problem structurally (for example examining the shapes the make up the objects they are trying to draw).

You're only advancing *one* scenario here, and you're ignoring that *anyone* -- including kids -- who takes to expressing themselves from the heart may be doing a lot *for themselves* in the process, irrespective of the content produced.

And what justification would you give for students to sit down and learn history and such? At least with art, engineering and such the justification is that with the knowledge being taught to the student would be able to bring their ideas into the material world as it would be knowledge directly useful for them to produce utility.

Psy, I am *not* going to *argue* this with you. I just gave my reasons in my last post, and in this one. We *don't* have to agree on this topic, and I *don't* agree with your position on this.

Psy

22nd September 2009, 01:47

Psy, I'm getting the sense here that you're being argumentative. You've been straying from a *political*-oriented discussion and have been repeating yourself numerous times on a tangential topic.

And without self-motivation skills are useless.

But we can do actually do something about skills.

You're only advancing *one* scenario here, and you're ignoring that *anyone* -- including kids -- who takes to expressing themselves from the heart may be doing a lot *for themselves* in the process, irrespective of the content produced.

That is true try to think about it from the point of view of producing art to used by others, the amount of a resources a professional studio goes through is over kill for simple personal expression.

Even when you not talking about professionally creating art, skills helps people express themselves better.

Psy, I am *not* going to *argue* this with you. I just gave my reasons in my last post, and in this one. We *don't* have to agree on this topic, and I *don't* agree with your position on this.
I just see a communist school system as being voluntary, that students are there to learn what to learn, I can't see many students simply wanting to learn of history yet it is easy for them to learn of it through passive teaching (which media is better at) for example telling history through telling of a story (of course you'd have to point out what is history and what is fiction that exists only to entertain). For example you could throw gain mech battles into the Russian Civil War in a kinda of Japanese anime while for the most part being historically accurate and both entertain and educate (footnotes of what is historical and not would help those interested in learning what really happened), with serious documentraires the masses could easily build a understanding all without classrooms.

ckaihatsu

22nd September 2009, 02:04

But we can do actually do something about skills.

We can also do something about self-motivation -- we can cooperate to overthrow *capitalist* society which contains *numerous* pitfalls that cause disillusioning and disheartening experiences in people's lives. An overall healthier society creates more opportunities for people to *want* to risk self-expression.

I just see a communist school system as being voluntary, that students are there to learn what to learn,

I would agree with you for the most part on this, but I also think that the larger society would continue to have an interest in presenting a certain *core curriculum*, including history, to its youth.

If you can rave about the benefits of training in art technique I can certainly do the same for history, the humanities, politics, and the rest.

I can't see many students simply wanting to learn of history

This is simply presumptuous.

yet it is easy for them to learn of it through passive teaching (which media is better at) for example telling history through telling of a story (of course you'd have to point out what is history and what is fiction that exists only to entertain). For example you could throw gain mech battles into the Russian Civil War in a kinda of Japanese anime while for the most part being historically accurate and both entertain and educate (footnotes of what is historical and not would help those interested in learning what really happened), with serious documentraires the masses could easily build a understanding all without classrooms.

You're speaking of *one type* of learning, which hardly covers the full range of *what* to teach, *how* to teach it, and *why* it's worth teaching. This topic is another whole discussion of its own.

Psy

22nd September 2009, 03:06

We can also do something about self-motivation -- we can cooperate to overthrow *capitalist* society which contains *numerous* pitfalls that cause disillusioning and disheartening experiences in people's lives. An overall healthier society creates more opportunities for people to *want* to risk self-expression.

That won't exist in a communist society (hopefully). The largest obstacle artists would face in a communist in my option would learning the skills. They won't have to worry about paying for education or finding a job in the art field after they acquire those skills, and don't have to worry about molding their artistic vision into a commodity.

I would agree with you for the most part on this, but I also think that the larger society would continue to have an interest in presenting a certain *core curriculum*, including history, to its youth.

If you can rave about the benefits of training in art technique I can certainly do the same for history, the humanities, politics, and the rest.

Then we get into the mess who decides on what is important for example would Khrushchev be important in a Communist society or can we just make him a foot note, lets face it even here at RevLeft we can't agree if Khrushchev is even relevant let alone why he would or would not be.

This is simply presumptuous.

It is but they would be more interested in learning history passively through culture.

ckaihatsu

22nd September 2009, 03:15

Then we get into the mess who decides on what is important for example would Khrushchev be important in a Communist society or can we just make him a foot note, lets face it even here at RevLeft we can't agree if Khrushchev is even relevant let alone why he would or would not be.

Hahahahaha -- it's a funny example you picked, and funnier still that you think we should *avoid* discussing historical issues.

See, even the question of whether to discuss someone or to make them a "footnote" becomes a historical issue...(!)

It is but they would be more interested in learning history passively through culture.

"They" -- ??? Who is this "they"??? Are you presuming to speak for all students of history, at all grade levels, throughout the world?

Hahahahaha!

Psy

22nd September 2009, 03:50

Hahahahaha -- it's a funny example you picked, and funnier still that you think we should *avoid* discussing historical issues.

See, even the question of whether to discuss someone or to make them a "footnote" becomes a historical issue...(!)

Right but outside a classroom that problem does not exist, want to know about Khrushchev fine, think he is irrelevant that is fine too.

"They" -- ??? Who is this "they"??? Are you presuming to speak for all students of history, at all grade levels, throughout the world?

Hahahahaha!
It is pretty much a given (there is a significant of theory behind passive (tangential) learning) that people tend to more self-motivated learning because of subject fragments in media or a task.

ckaihatsu

22nd September 2009, 04:16

Right but outside a classroom that problem does not exist, want to know about Khrushchev fine, think he is irrelevant that is fine too.

I'm surprised to hear you say this -- a politically savvy person could tell a *lot* about another person's politics by finding out what they think about Khrushchev. It's not a "problem" in the real world as much as it's an *indicator* of where people stand on the political spectrum. (Ditto for the Bolshevik Revolution.)

For this reason it's *better* to know about Khrushchev and that postwar period of history than to *not know*.

It is pretty much a given (there is a significant of theory behind passive (tangential) learning) that people tend to more self-motivated learning because of subject fragments in media or a task.

This is not comprehensible -- you should rephrase it. (And, again, the process of learning is more complex in practice than you make it out to be.)

Psy

22nd September 2009, 04:31

I'm surprised to hear you say this -- a politically savvy person could tell a *lot* about another person's politics by finding out what they think about Khrushchev. It's not a "problem" in the real world as much as it's an *indicator* of where people stand on the political spectrum. (Ditto for the Bolshevik Revolution.)

For this reason it's *better* to know about Khrushchev and that postwar period of history than to *not know*.

We are talking about a post capitalist society, it would not be much a indicator as the downfall of capitalism would overshadow the "cold war".

This is not comprehensible -- you should rephrase it. (And, again, the process of learning is more complex in practice than you make it out to be.)

The idea behind the theory of tangential learning is that people are more self-motivated to learn things want to learn thus implanting subjects fragments in media would facilitate learning through causing curiosity.

Psy

26th September 2009, 01:32

The problem I have with state curriculums beyond giving workers the skills they need to produce utility is it empowers the state to create the dominant idioms of society. How would we even make up qualifications of teachers to teach outside teaching skills, and wouldn't councils have more imporant things to deal with then managing politically charged curriculums to ensure they are unbais?

I also think tangential learning works well here, instead of beating people over the head with a point, you throw fragments into society to get people curious so they get intrested and seek out more information. For example instead of a communist society having courses teaching the history of the workers revolution (meaning we would have to debate over what that history would be and the result would be watered down so it would get past fractions within councils) you simply sprinkle fragments of the history in popular communist culture in hopes people would learn more. That way we don't have to really worry about being unbais as we are not forcing anyone learn out brand of history just putting it out there.

ckaihatsu

26th September 2009, 02:28

The problem I have with state curriculums beyond giving workers the skills they need to produce utility is it empowers the state to create the dominant idioms of society.

You're inadvertently hitting on the *crux* of societal norms, or civilization itself -- we *can't* just *duck* these large-scale societal issues as anarchists attempt to do.

I will grant that it *is* conceivable that we *could* do away with *much* of (commercial) mass culture altogether -- what if a workers' state *abolished* all conventional, one-to-many forms of mass communication altogether: all broadcast, satellite, and cable TV, and all radio, so that *all* transmissions of culture would be Internet-based and decentralized (many-to-many) -- ?

But even in a liberated society we would still have the "baggage" -- if you will -- of everything that has come before. Would a conscientious scientist permit the attack of "creation science" against the theory of evolution? Of course not. Or would chemists allow the re-emergence of a school of "alchemy" if they could do something about it?

By the time you aggregate all of the schools of accumulated knowledge back together you've arrived back at an "official culture", no matter how much academic freedom they have. And these academics and professionals would gladly do political battle over what should be taught, or passed down, to the incoming generations.

The same goes for the humanities as well -- I, as a scientific Marxist, would far prefer to see a historical-materialist approach to the study of history, as exemplified in Harman's _People's History of the World_, than any other approach, because it is the most accurate method for making sense of humanity's development.

How would we even make up qualifications of teachers to teach outside teaching skills, and wouldn't councils have more imporant things to deal with then managing politically charged curriculums to ensure they are unbais?

Teachers are workers, so we're only begging the question here....

I also think tangential learning works well here, instead of beating people over the head with a point, you throw fragments into society to get people curious so they get intrested and seek out more information. For example instead of a communist society having courses teaching the history of the workers revolution (meaning we would have to debate over what that history would be and the result would be watered down so it would get past fractions within councils) you simply sprinkle fragments of the history in popular communist culture in hopes people would learn more. That way we don't have to really worry about being unbais as we are not forcing anyone learn out brand of history just putting it out there.

Well, this is *one* technique, but, looking at it politically, you're begging the question here, too -- *who* would decide *what* fragments of history to sprinkle?

You're getting snagged on the bourgeois-abstraction of "unbiased"....

Psy

26th September 2009, 03:28

You're inadvertently hitting on the *crux* of societal norms, or civilization itself -- we *can't* just *duck* these large-scale societal issues as anarchists attempt to do.

Right but some of these issues are caused by structure of institution, what makes capitalism more stable then feudalism for the ruling class is it far more is automated so the ruling class doesn't even need to be class conscious for capitalism to reproduce itself.

I will grant that it *is* conceivable that we *could* do away with *much* of (commercial) mass culture altogether -- what if a workers' state *abolished* all conventional, one-to-many forms of mass communication altogether: all broadcast, satellite, and cable TV, and all radio, so that *all* transmissions of culture would be Internet-based and decentralized (many-to-many) -- ?

That would be unnecessary, there is nothing wrong with one-to-many forms of mass communications, my point is even TV is better suited as rather then a classroom, rather then a curriculum you can broadcast a wide variety of educational programs at the same idea giving people choice.

You have to make concessions in what to teach in a classroom, no such concessions have to be made even for TV due to the fact watching TV is a voluntary act and the economy of scale allows far more production values in educating.

But even in a liberated society we would still have the "baggage" -- if you will -- of everything that has come before. Would a conscientious scientist permit the attack of "creation science" against the theory of evolution? Of course not. Or would chemists allow the re-emergence of a school of "alchemy" if they could do something about it?

By the time you aggregate all of the schools of accumulated knowledge back together you've arrived back at an "official culture", no matter how much academic freedom they have. And these academics and professionals would gladly do political battle over what should be taught, or passed down, to the incoming generations.

The same goes for the humanities as well -- I, as a scientific Marxist, would far prefer to see a historical-materialist approach to the study of history, as exemplified in Harman's _People's History of the World_, than any other approach, because it is the most accurate method for making sense of humanity's development.

Or different conclusions could reduce any curriculum to be the lowest common denominator while as a said TV wouldn't have this issue as the fractions would have the ability to produce what they want since they are not dealing with the scarcity of a students time in a classroom.

Well, this is *one* technique, but, looking at it politically, you're begging the question here, too -- *who* would decide *what* fragments of history to sprinkle?

You're getting snagged on the bourgeois-abstraction of "unbiased"....
TV doesn't have to unbiased since you have simultaneous broadcasts (different channels) and digital TV means no real shortage of channels.

ckaihatsu

26th September 2009, 04:20

what makes capitalism more stable then feudalism for the ruling class is it far more is automated so the ruling class doesn't even need to be class conscious for capitalism to reproduce itself.

Agreed.

Right but some of these [societal large-scale] issues are caused by structure of institution,

I think you're still skirting the fact that we have bodies of accumulated knowledge that inherently require learned advocacy. While the landscape of scientific pursuit could very well look very different in a post-capitalist society, the reality will remain that certain schools will be more well-grounded than others, due to their veracity -- this ongoing reality *cannot* be ignored in favor of a "start-from-scratch" mentality.

A post-capitalist society should *welcome* the politics of determining a knowledge-workers' accepted *mainstream* of prevailing thought.

Or different conclusions could reduce any curriculum to be the lowest common denominator

You're not explaining this, Psy -- *what is* the "lowest common denominator" in terms of scientific or humanistic knowledge? (I continue to advocate a worker-decided core curriculum based on the best, science-based schools of inquiry.)

That would be unnecessary, there is nothing wrong with one-to-many forms of mass communications, my point is even TV is better suited as rather then a classroom, rather then a curriculum you can broadcast a wide variety of educational programs at the same idea giving people choice.

You have to make concessions in what to teach in a classroom, no such concessions have to be made even for TV due to the fact watching TV is a voluntary act and the economy of scale allows far more production values in educating.

while as a said TV wouldn't have this issue as the fractions would have the ability to produce what they want since they are not dealing with the scarcity of a students time in a classroom.

TV doesn't have to unbiased since you have simultaneous broadcasts (different channels) and digital TV means no real shortage of channels.

I'm going to remain neutral on the use of broadcast and Internet methods for education -- certainly I can appreciate the freedom involved in a self-determined (autodidactic) path of learning.

You're basically pushing to say that formal classrooms and formal (core) curriculums would be unnecessary in a liberated, post-capitalist society.

I have to respectfully differ with you on the formality part because I still think that some societally determined avenues of guided instruction are preferable and *unavoidable* in making the best use of students' time. Society, under *any* economic / political system, will *always* have a presiding interest in passing down the best knowledge and practices that it has inherited and developed. This would be the basis of a core curriculum, for students to be exposed to, so that they themselves may inherit the best of humanity. I won't attempt to get too specific here about the number of years of study, or the schooling week, but I don't think we can just ignore the best of what has come before, as determined by a self-liberated pedagogy-minded working class.

Psy

26th September 2009, 15:31

The problem is I doubt we would agree on what knowledge and practices we should pass down other then those regarding production (that is pretty universal). A worker raised in one part of the world would pretty much hold the skills to work anywhere in the world with the barrier being language as science, engineering and even the basics of art (those there are different dominant styles in different cultures) doesn't change from culture to culture, what this means is other then language communities around a communist world would be able to agree on curriculum regarding teaching workers how to be productive workers (I'm including artists as workers here).

On the flip side you'd never have such uniformity when it comes the humanities, each community would have its own view on history and even within these communities splits among different fractions within the community. So you run into a problem that if you teach for example history that when workers move around (and they will) they will run across workers that was formally taught a different version of history. Worse you'd still have fractions wanting to including nationalist views in formal education, this would including re-writing the imperialistic history of nations to try and make them look less imperialistic during their capitalist past. For example a communist USA could still have a problem relating to a communist Vietnam version of the Vietnam war due to US exceptionalism still taking hold in my Americans mind preventing a fraction of Americans to refuse to come to terms to the extent of US imperialism during the capitalist period of US history.

Lets no forget you'd be dealing with a large chunk of adults out of the educational system, meaning the task of educing the masses of the history capitalism (and the history of workers struggles) would mostly have to fall not to educational systems but to the media to spark public debates.

ckaihatsu

26th September 2009, 16:34

On the flip side you'd never have such uniformity when it comes the humanities,

each community would have its own view on history and even within these communities splits among different fractions within the community. So you run into a problem that if you teach for example history that when workers move around (and they will) they will run across workers that was formally taught a different version of history.

I think you're glossing over the macro-to-micro axis -- "uniformity" doesn't mean that every same exact sentence must be covered in every locality -- it means that there's a general agreement among knowledge-workers as to *what* is *significant* about history, overall -- ditto for literature, etc. -- it's just like us here with our politics, but the domain would be the humanities instead of revolutionary organizing.

Worse you'd still have fractions wanting to including nationalist views in formal education, this would including re-writing the imperialistic history of nations to try and make them look less imperialistic during their capitalist past. For example a communist USA could still have a problem relating to a communist Vietnam version of the Vietnam war due to US exceptionalism still taking hold in my Americans mind preventing a fraction of Americans to refuse to come to terms to the extent of US imperialism during the capitalist period of US history.

This is a ridiculous assertion -- by definition there would not *be* any nations in a communist world -- supporters of past U.S. history or past Vietnamese history would be akin to today's (U.S.) Civil War buffs....

A mass *revolutionary* sentiment would have to exist for there to be a revolution in the first place -- this means that the factionalism you're describing *would not exist* -- "already", 30 years after the end of the Vietnam War, there's a certain general sense that we've moved past that period of imperialist adventurism. And the current aggression against Afghanistan is more unpopular than ever.

Lets no forget you'd be dealing with a large chunk of adults out of the educational system, meaning the task of educing the masses of the history capitalism (and the history of workers struggles) would mostly have to fall not to educational systems but to the media to spark public debates.

Perhaps the revolutionary movement would largely entail an ongoing education component -- after all, that's what we do here at RevLeft, and we're revolutionaries. And perhaps the tasks of a post-capitalist society would largely be *political* -- as opposed to laborious -- with attendant educational components.... I'm open to seeing that the formal classroom itself might be made anachronistic, but maybe it *won't* be....

Psy

27th September 2009, 00:09

I think you're glossing over the macro-to-micro axis -- "uniformity" doesn't mean that every same exact sentence must be covered in every locality -- it means that there's a general agreement among knowledge-workers as to *what* is *significant* about history, overall -- ditto for literature, etc. -- it's just like us here with our politics, but the domain would be the humanities instead of revolutionary organizing.

Yet you'd have far more differences in different communities when it comes to the humanities then the sciences and skills. Students quickly see the pointless of learning the humanities in the classroom as they move from to community and see no real consensus even within communities when it comes to the humanities, that what humanities they are taught in classrooms would be nothing more then the lowest common denominator that is watered down enough so it is not blocked by councils, all while media don't have this problem at all as handled totally differently due to a totally different goal of reflecting society (its aspirations, fears and experiences).

This is a ridiculous assertion -- by definition there would not *be* any nations in a communist world -- supporters of past U.S. history or past Vietnamese history would be akin to today's (U.S.) Civil War buffs....

There would be people identifying with regions where nations use to be.

A mass *revolutionary* sentiment would have to exist for there to be a revolution in the first place -- this means that the factionalism you're describing *would not exist* -- "already", 30 years after the end of the Vietnam War, there's a certain general sense that we've moved past that period of imperialist adventurism. And the current aggression against Afghanistan is more unpopular than ever.

Workers being mad at exploitation of their labor (and overthrowing their capitalist masters) is different then coming to terms with the imperialist past of their nation. It is very possible for a revolution to uproot capitalists without totally uprooting nationalism.

Perhaps the revolutionary movement would largely entail an ongoing education component -- after all, that's what we do here at RevLeft, and we're revolutionaries. And perhaps the tasks of a post-capitalist society would largely be *political* -- as opposed to laborious -- with attendant educational components.... I'm open to seeing that the formal classroom itself might be made anachronistic, but maybe it *won't* be....
Possible.

ckaihatsu

27th September 2009, 01:06

Yet you'd have far more differences in different communities when it comes to the humanities then the sciences and skills.

That's *absolutely fine*, Psy -- that's the *nature* of the humanities. It's about *validating* individual life experience, and the very notion was a revolution of its own kind in doing so.

Even the sciences and skills are not as monolithic as you make them out to be -- certainly a more liberated and open society, freed from the commercial imperative, would be able to explore far more avenues of technical investigation.

Students quickly see the pointless of learning the humanities in the classroom as they move from to community and see no real consensus even within communities when it comes to the humanities,

The humanities *is not* politics, Psy -- there's *no need* for consensus...!

: D

that what humanities they are taught in classrooms would be nothing more then the lowest common denominator that is watered down enough so it is not blocked by councils, all while media don't have this problem at all as handled totally differently due to a totally different goal of reflecting society (its aspirations, fears and experiences).

This is highly presumptuous again, and now you're practically making a free-market-type argument. I think the point of a liberated society is to *discuss* and *discover* what the correct answers are, free from commercial and nationalistic interests. The debate is *part* of the education process, for *everyone* -- look at how Wikipedia has come together -- ! That's done a lot of the groundwork already!

There would be people identifying with regions where nations use to be.

Well, sure, to some extent, but the difference is that it would be *intellectual* and *academic*, as opposed to today's power politics.

Workers being mad at exploitation of their labor (and overthrowing their capitalist masters) is different then coming to terms with the imperialist past of their nation. It is very possible for a revolution to uproot capitalists without totally uprooting nationalism.

No, I disagree completely. A revolution, by definition, would *have* to be anti-imperialist and anti-nationalist as well as anti-capitalist or else it *wouldn't be* an international working class revolution.

Psy

27th September 2009, 01:37

That's *absolutely fine*, Psy -- that's the *nature* of the humanities. It's about *validating* individual life experience, and the very notion was a revolution of its own kind in doing so.

Even the sciences and skills are not as monolithic as you make them out to be -- certainly a more liberated and open society, freed from the commercial imperative, would be able to explore far more avenues of technical investigation.

Sciences and skills are fairly monolithic in comparison, even with dealing with art you are mostly only with dominant techniques and it would aid artists to learn about non-dominant techniques to give them means to produce the art they want to.

Humanities is different is no longer about giving the student the means to produce, rather structuring on how to view reality.

The humanities *is not* politics, Psy -- there's *no need* for consensus...!

You do need some consensus for curriculums

This is highly presumptuous again, and now you're practically making a free-market-type argument. I think the point of a liberated society is to *discuss* and *discover* what the correct answers are, free from commercial and nationalistic interests. The debate is *part* of the education process, for *everyone* -- look at how Wikipedia has come together -- ! That's done a lot of the groundwork already!

It is not a free-market-type argument, you won't have channels competing with each others for viewers rather channels simply producing a variety of media.

Well, sure, to some extent, but the difference is that it would be *intellectual* and *academic*, as opposed to today's power politics.

You forget regional cultures.

No, I disagree completely. A revolution, by definition, would *have* to be anti-imperialist and anti-nationalist as well as anti-capitalist or else it *wouldn't be* an international working class revolution.
It is not a prerequisite, workers can avoid dealing with their imperialist past, they can even cooperate to some extent while avoiding their past.

ckaihatsu

27th September 2009, 01:59

Sciences and skills are fairly monolithic in comparison, even with dealing with art you are mostly only with dominant techniques and it would aid artists to learn about non-dominant techniques to give them means to produce the art they want to.

Right -- so there's a *lot* of variation among the artistic disciplines, plus room to innovate, as with dance, etc.

In science we've come to know a lot from the approach of reductionism, but much has been neglected as well, as with ionic electromagnetism.

Humanities is different is no longer about giving the student the means to produce, rather structuring on how to view reality.

Sure -- and most of its history has been bourgeois, but it's been an improvement over not even having access to the means of documenting one's own life and being creative. (And the student can certainly contribute to the humanities just as any of us can.)

You do need some consensus for curriculums

Okay, agreed -- so that would be the *politics* of determining what is *significant* from the humanities.

It is not a free-market-type argument, you won't have channels competing with each others for viewers rather channels simply producing a variety of media.

Yes, you're right.

You forget regional cultures.

Right, but again, that's fine -- note I said *core* curriculum -- that would leave room for regional variations, local histories, etc.

It is not a prerequisite, workers can avoid dealing with their imperialist past, they can even cooperate to some extent while avoiding their past.

No, I think you've got it wrong here -- look at what happened during the build-up to World War I and World War II -- *many* people hopped on the *nationalist* bandwagon and *supported* the countries they were born in, fighting members of the working class from other countries.

To have a revolution people have to be revolutionaries, and to be a revolutionary means being *class* conscious. That consciousness *precludes* nationalism altogether.

Psy

27th September 2009, 03:16

Right -- so there's a *lot* of variation among the artistic disciplines, plus room to innovate, as with dance, etc.

In science we've come to know a lot from the approach of reductionism, but much has been neglected as well, as with ionic electromagnetism.

True

Sure -- and most of its history has been bourgeois, but it's been an improvement over not even having access to the means of documenting one's own life and being creative. (And the student can certainly contribute to the humanities just as any of us can.)

True but large discussions on humanities would be difficult in classrooms and if successful would overshadow the curriculum of the classroom.

Okay, agreed -- so that would be the *politics* of determining what is *significant* from the humanities.

Which wouldn't accrue for humanities outside of classrooms

Right, but again, that's fine -- note I said *core* curriculum -- that would leave room for regional variations, local histories, etc.

That would make formal humanities studies seem irrelevant as workers move around from cultural region to cultural region.

No, I think you've got it wrong here -- look at what happened during the build-up to World War I and World War II -- *many* people hopped on the *nationalist* bandwagon and *supported* the countries they were born in, fighting members of the working class from other countries.

To have a revolution people have to be revolutionaries, and to be a revolutionary means being *class* conscious. That consciousness *precludes* nationalism altogether.
Just because workers reject the state doesn't mean they are free from nationalistic ideas.

ckaihatsu

27th September 2009, 03:35

True but large discussions on humanities would be difficult in classrooms and if successful would overshadow the curriculum of the classroom.

We have to make a distinction between future knowledge-workers (teachers, academics, etc.) and students here. My advocacy of a *core curriculum* in a revolutionary and post-revolution society is to point out that humanity has accomplished much in the field of self-awareness about itself, collectively -- this collection is called the humanities and it can continue over into the decided-upon curriculum of a post-capitalist society.

Students would be served by adult guidance based on this body of knowledge, which would also include the lessons of the (future) revolution, including its politics and history.

Involved discussions -- including this one -- are almost
*always* unwieldy and sometimes difficult. That shouldn't deter workers from striving for agreement on the areas within, nor should it deter students from tackling it at the level at which they're comfortable (and challenged).

Which wouldn't accrue for humanities outside of classrooms

Certainly the field of humanities extends well outside of the formal education system.

That would make formal humanities studies seem irrelevant as workers move around from cultural region to cultural region.

(Only to you.) This is a strange statement you're making -- don't you think some overall agreements, or presiding common knowledge, will exist in the humanities, no matter what locality it's being studied in? For example, certain classic works of literature, culled from all over the world, have risen to widespread prominence and are read extensively because of the themes, etc., contained within.

Just because workers reject the state doesn't mean they are free from nationalistic ideas.

You're being vague here -- are you talking about *politics* or not? "Nationalistic ideas" indicates *politics*, and nationalism is incompatible with class consciousness.

Psy

27th September 2009, 04:27

We have to make a distinction between future knowledge-workers (teachers, academics, etc.) and students here. My advocacy of a *core curriculum* in a revolutionary and post-revolution society is to point out that humanity has accomplished much in the field of self-awareness about itself, collectively -- this collection is called the humanities and it can continue over into the decided-upon curriculum of a post-capitalist society.

Students would be served by adult guidance based on this body of knowledge, which would also include the lessons of the (future) revolution, including its politics and history.

Or we could trust the students would learn about politics and history from culture, thus rather then building a curriculum we focus on communicating humanities through media.

Involved discussions -- including this one -- are almost
*always* unwieldy and sometimes difficult. That shouldn't deter workers from striving for agreement on the areas within, nor should it deter students from tackling it at the level at which they're comfortable (and challenged).

Certainly the field of humanities extends well outside of the formal education system.

The fact it extends well outside the formal education system begs the question what would be the point for it to be formal taught?

(Only to you.) This is a strange statement you're making -- don't you think some overall agreements, or presiding common knowledge, will exist in the humanities, no matter what locality it's being studied in? For example, certain classic works of literature, culled from all over the world, have risen to widespread prominence and are read extensively because of the themes, etc., contained within.

No where as vast a media can.

You're being vague here -- are you talking about *politics* or not? "Nationalistic ideas" indicates *politics*, and nationalism is incompatible with class consciousness.
Class consciousness is not a boolean state and the human mind is very capable of believing in contradictory ideals since the human brain is far from a computer where it can easily check its logic (it is a reason why workers currently do actually side with the bourgeoisie when they are struggling against the bourgeoisie) . It is very possible to have partial class consciousness along with workers still holding onto contradictory beliefs, for example soldiers taking up arms against the state might still hold onto ideals of nationalism epically while they are occupying the state to provide the authority of the dictatorship of the proletariat (over the bourgeoisie) as the revolutionary army, slaughtering capitalist armies for their nation's proletariat (rather then a more class conscious view of fighting for all workers).

ckaihatsu

27th September 2009, 13:41

Or we could trust the students would learn about politics and history from culture, thus rather then building a curriculum we focus on communicating humanities through media.

Yeah, well, we've been by this intersection before in our conversation -- what you're *missing* is that you're *only* addressing the *means* of communication, or *process*. I'm pretty much *process-neutral*.

What you're leaving open is *what content* would be developed for those media channels, and by whom, and with what criteria in mind? (!!!)

If you want to leave the content very decentralized and up to localities, that's fine, but I still maintain that there *will be* either a *need for* or an *actual* prevailing mainstream that develops a generalized culture *from* the various localities.

Let me put it this way -- *after* the revolution how would it be talked about? (Recall that you and I worked for some time on a fictionalized *account* of a revolution in which we used *generalities*.) It would be ridiculous to try to describe an *overarching event* based on localities' histories alone -- there *has to* be *some kind* of generalized account, since it would be a *widespread* event. *How* would *this* "macro" history be written? (*Now* do you see????????????)

The fact it extends well outside the formal education system begs the question what would be the point for it to be formal taught?

Once we have a generalized account of the revolution that would be the *prevailing* (or "official") *history* agreed-upon and known on a widespread (global) scale. (Think of it in terms of what would show up on Wikipedia.)

So with a generally agreed-to account comes the need to *disseminate* it -- again, I'm process-neutral on this, but there *would be* some *mainstream* channels, even institutions, that would take up this task in a formal manner.

No where as vast a media can.

(Content vs. process, again.)

Class consciousness is not a boolean state and the human mind is very capable of believing in contradictory ideals since the human brain is far from a computer where it can easily check its logic (it is a reason why workers currently do actually side with the bourgeoisie when they are struggling against the bourgeoisie) . It is very possible to have partial class consciousness along with workers still holding onto contradictory beliefs, for example soldiers taking up arms against the state might still hold onto ideals of nationalism epically while they are occupying the state to provide the authority of the dictatorship of the proletariat (over the bourgeoisie) as the revolutionary army, slaughtering capitalist armies for their nation's proletariat (rather then a more class conscious view of fighting for all workers).

Look, Psy, this line is *very* politically problematic -- you've decided to be empirical here, instead of being revolutionarily partisan. It's *pointless* to argue about what's *empirically possible* -- what counts is *what we fight for* as political partisans.

Psy

27th September 2009, 15:56

Yeah, well, we've been by this intersection before in our conversation -- what you're *missing* is that you're *only* addressing the *means* of communication, or *process*. I'm pretty much *process-neutral*.

What you're leaving open is *what content* would be developed for those media channels, and by whom, and with what criteria in mind? (!!!)

If you want to leave the content very decentralized and up to localities, that's fine, but I still maintain that there *will be* either a *need for* or an *actual* prevailing mainstream that develops a generalized culture *from* the various localities.

Let me put it this way -- *after* the revolution how would it be talked about? (Recall that you and I worked for some time on a fictionalized *account* of a revolution in which we used *generalities*.) It would be ridiculous to try to describe an *overarching event* based on localities' histories alone -- there *has to* be *some kind* of generalized account, since it would be a *widespread* event. *How* would *this* "macro" history be written? (*Now* do you see????????????)

It would be written as workers from different cultures interact getting the different historical fragments of the revolution causing debates on the events of the revolution as most regions would only know what happened in their corner of the revolution till they start talking with other regions about the revolution. For example odds are workers in Detroit wouldn't even know what happened (or happening) in Chicago till after the revolution and they start talking with workers from Chicago and wouldn't know what happened globally till they were able to get all the points of view around the world and piece all the historical fragments together which probably take some time since we'd also have to deal with myths, for example stories of battles could be exaggerated.

Once we have a generalized account of the revolution that would be the *prevailing* (or "official") *history* agreed-upon and known on a widespread (global) scale. (Think of it in terms of what would show up on Wikipedia.)

So with a generally agreed-to account comes the need to *disseminate* it -- again, I'm process-neutral on this, but there *would be* some *mainstream* channels, even institutions, that would take up this task in a formal manner.

Yes once we do have a generalized account that would take time and require debating the history of the revolution for some time. So in the mean time you need a method to spread a history (or rather histories) that is not agreed upon so it out there to be debated and analyzed.

Look, Psy, this line is *very* politically problematic -- you've decided to be empirical here, instead of being revolutionarily partisan. It's *pointless* to argue about what's *empirically possible* -- what counts is *what we fight for* as political partisans.
I'm pointing out that it is very possible for us to find ourselves victorious over the capitalists yet the working class not totally class conscious.

ckaihatsu

27th September 2009, 18:27

It would be written as workers from different cultures interact getting the different historical fragments of the revolution causing debates on the events of the revolution as most regions would only know what happened in their corner of the revolution till they start talking with other regions about the revolution. For example odds are workers in Detroit wouldn't even know what happened (or happening) in Chicago till after the revolution and they start talking with workers from Chicago and wouldn't know what happened globally till they were able to get all the points of view around the world and piece all the historical fragments together which probably take some time since we'd also have to deal with myths, for example stories of battles could be exaggerated.

Yes! *This* is the humanities, in a nutshell -- this is how academics do their work, in *all* of the various fields....

Yes once we do have a generalized account that would take time and require debating the history of the revolution for some time. So in the mean time you need a method to spread a history (or rather histories) that is not agreed upon so it out there to be debated and analyzed.

Right -- preliminary history is called 'journalism'.

I'm pointing out that it is very possible for us to find ourselves victorious over the capitalists yet the working class not totally class conscious.

I *really* doubt that this would be the case -- "all" it would take is a succession of usurpations of the corporate media in many urban centers, in tandem with worker occupations of major industries, to effectively cripple the mainstream bourgeois propaganda -- "the nightly news".... This *could* very well be enough to "shatter the spectacle", if it hasn't already been cracked by the ongoing recession / depression....

punisa

27th September 2009, 22:31

What we do no not need are people like INH who maintain bourgeois concepts of art and artists by asserting that not everyone is capable of producing art, and that art should still be restricted to a privileged minority under socialism.

Saying that "not everyone is capable of producing art" does NOT equal it to "art should be restricted to a privileged minority".

The way you actually managed to put equality sign between those is just simply wrong.
We could further expand on this by trying to propose a universal definition of what art is.
But all I get from your statement is some sort of non argumentative dislike towards *something*. I bet the image you had in mind is that nowadays most of art exhibitions, symphony orchestras etc are mainly the privilege of the rich, not the working class.
This is indeed true and will/must be changed in a communist society.

But saying that everyone can produce art is like saying that everyone can grow to be 2 meters (cca 78 inches) tall.
This, as well as your statement, is wrong.

All people will get the whole array of jobs to choose from. Eventually majority will settle on the one (or multiple) they do/know/love the most.

Just like any artist will not be an equally talented cook. Any cook will not be an equally good artist.

Would we call a guy that burns 7/10 of his meals an excellent cook? No, we wouldn't. Same goes for a guy trying his skills in art.

So the statement that "not everyone is capable of producing art" stands true for all time, not because discrimination, but merely because of our genetic or yet undiscovered prepositions.

The society which will brag about itself claiming that it can make its whole population into artists is a strange and ridiculous one.

Psy

27th September 2009, 23:17

Yes! *This* is the humanities, in a nutshell -- this is how academics do their work, in *all* of the various fields....

Right -- preliminary history is called 'journalism'.

The problem is the capitalist would use media blackouts to control uprisings and workers would be too pre-occupied with sustaining its assault on capitalism to do journalism thus you'd have to put together what happened after the fact, after whole fragments died with the only people that knew what happened in some battles. Also odds are by the time we get around to writting to history of the revolution a mythos would already have came into being with any fragments the show the revolutionary army using questionable tactics being long burried and it would take alot investigative work to unearth unbais accounts of these events and have better history then "revolutaries were infailable heros that slayed the evil captialist forces"

I *really* doubt that this would be the case -- "all" it would take is a succession of usurpations of the corporate media in many urban centers, in tandem with worker occupations of major industries, to effectively cripple the mainstream bourgeois propaganda -- "the nightly news".... This *could* very well be enough to "shatter the spectacle", if it hasn't already been cracked by the ongoing recession / depression....
Again class consciousness is a boolean state, just because workers are class consciousness in some aspects don't meant they will automatically be in others.

ckaihatsu

28th September 2009, 15:47

The problem is the capitalist would use media blackouts to control uprisings and workers would be too pre-occupied with sustaining its assault on capitalism to do journalism

I don't think that is a reasonable prediction. It is far easier now than ever before to do documenting "in the field", and I think that groups of militant workers, no matter where they are, would both have an interest *and* actually take the steps to document their own history, even under the most pressing conditions.

If worker militancy was widespread enough to carry out uprisings at the workplaces of major industries then they could certainly do the same around the workplaces of major media outlets -- this means that the uprisings could *get past* the media blackouts and take control of the means of mass communication to provide journalism on the uprisings as they happen.

thus you'd have to put together what happened after the fact, after whole fragments died with the only people that knew what happened in some battles. Also odds are by the time we get around to writting to history of the revolution a mythos would already have came into being with any fragments the show the revolutionary army using questionable tactics being long burried and it would take alot investigative work to unearth unbais accounts of these events and have better history then "revolutaries were infailable heros that slayed the evil captialist forces"

Again class consciousness is a boolean state, just because workers are class consciousness in some aspects don't meant they will automatically be in others.

You're not showing much confidence in the ability of revolutionary forces here, Psy.