I've never really thought of this before...

[DaComm]

But if intellectual labour isn't a means to justify profit; because said labor is not productive of any that deserves remuneration, how do we justify the earnings of people like writers and scientists and things of the like who work intellectually. It would be a tremendous help and mental un-clogger if someone could answer for me. Thanks.

[anticap]

said labor is not productive of any that deserves remuneration

Says who?

If you're worried that capitalist profit will be somehow justified, don't be. Pro-capitalists like to conflate the capitalist with the entrepreneur. The latter engage in intellectual labor; the former do not -- they merely grant permission to utilize the means of production, which they "own." A capitalist may also be an entrepreneur, but he is not necessarily one, and is generally not one.

[NecroCommie]

Exactly, the reason why capitalists don't earn their money is because they gain it through ownership. Scientists and artists have to produce results to earn their wage, a quality not shared by capitalists.

[Taikand]

Well, if we're asking "How would we pay artists?", then that is a problem.I think that an artist should always be having another, productive work and art should only be done because one wants to entertain or wants to create. We see many small bands doing great things while the "professional" artist choose to play safe and just do whatever has been proven to be successful in the past.Some might argue "but artists need time to create, you can't just expect them to these things after-work". If you want them to have them more time to create, give them your money.
For instance 100 persons agree to sustain said person.
The average salary is 100 credits. Those 100 credits that go the artists are divided evenly among the fans, so everyone looses 1 credit. But the artist does not own whatever he or she creates, it is owned by every man and woman that inhabit this planet.
If you like my idea, good just press the "Thank button", if not ,even better!Create a better idea, by learning from my mistakes.

[NecroCommie]

Your proposal is "OK" I guess. I can say quite certainly though, that it is a lot better than the current system.

You were right about the artists having another productive work bit.

[anticap]

Just to reiterate, because I fear being misunderstood: I'm not using or endorsing "entrepreneurialism" in the usual sense, where it is conflated with "capitalism"; I'm using it in the sense of having an idea to create or improve something, and then seeking to bring the idea to fruition. Using this sense, and taking the remunerative system for granted, surely an entrepreneur is entitled to remuneration.

In The Conquest of Bread, Kropotkin talks about a boy who "one day getting tired of pulling the rope that formerly opened the valve to let steam enter under the piston, tied the rope to the lever of the machine, without suspecting that he had invented the essential mechanical part of all modern machinery -- the automatic valve." Had the boy followed through and brought his invention to market, I'd call him an entrepreneur.

Every worker is a potential entrepreneur. The entrepreneurial spirit (which is to say, creativity) will thankfully always exist. We shouldn't cede the concept to the Right just because creative workers under capitalism are generally forced to go into cahoots with the scum of the earth (capitalists) in order to bring their contributions to the people.

Moreover, as Janet Wolff paraphrased Marx: "all non-alienated labour is creative, and hence intrinsically the same as artistic labour." To that I would add that all artistic labor is intellectual labor. If I'm not wrong about that, then all non-alienated labor is, by extension, intellectual labor; therefore not only is there nothing inherently inferior about intellectual labor -- it isn't necessarily even appropriate to cleave it from labor in general.

[JazzRemington]

But if intellectual labour isn't a means to justify profit; because said labor is not productive of any that deserves remuneration, how do we justify the earnings of people like writers and scientists and things of the like who work intellectually. It would be a tremendous help and mental un-clogger if someone could answer for me. Thanks.

Do writers, scientists, and other people who perform intellectual labor sell their labor power? If so, that makes them proletariats. The type of labor performed does not matter, period. Basically, it shouldn't be a question of the TYPE of labor performed, but rather where income comes from: exploitation of labor or from labor itself, or buying labor power or selling it.