Music & Arts in a communist society?

[RefusedPP]

If in a stateless communist society where everybody adheres to Marx's "From each according to his ability, to each according to his need" slogan, and there is no money; then I would like to pose a question.

If one performs labour, for example working in a factory making shoes a person works for eight hours, thereby earning 'eight hours' worth of commodities (such as food). How do people of non-manual 'labour' gain commodities. For example, an author writes a novel, or a songwriter composes a song - is there no way for them to exchange their creativity with commodities? And if there was, who could determine the amount of hours an author has spend writing the book and how much that entitles them to in commodities? That wouldn't be fair. Have I got totally the wrong idea? Somebody enlighten me :unsure:

The same question applies to people of academia. I think it is important for people to be educated so how is teaching ascribed to a form of labour?

[bcbm]

why would 'eight hours of labor' translate to some approximation of a wage?

[RefusedPP]

why would 'eight hours of labor' translate to some approximation of a wage?

:blushing: That's what I thought, and that's what I get for posting questions at 4:30 am. I remember reading or hearing about a similar proposed concept in communism though, but I thought also "doesn't that translate similarly as a wage" or as money. How would that system work anyway then for anybody? People perform a task, take what commodities they need (however that is quantised) and be done? This is once concept I have struggled to understand.

[bcbm]

nobody knows there is no answer its just like we figure people will be better as huamanity for themselves then strugglin to kille ach other i n capitlaism

[Veovis]

If in a stateless communist society where everybody adheres to Marx's "From each according to his ability, to each according to his need" slogan, and there is no money; then I would like to pose a question.

If one performs labour, for example working in a factory making shoes a person works for eight hours, thereby earning 'eight hours' worth of commodities (such as food). How do people of non-manual 'labour' gain commodities. For example, an author writes a novel, or a songwriter composes a song - is there no way for them to exchange their creativity with commodities? And if there was, who could determine the amount of hours an author has spend writing the book and how much that entitles them to in commodities? That wouldn't be fair. Have I got totally the wrong idea? Somebody enlighten me :unsure:

The same question applies to people of academia. I think it is important for people to be educated so how is teaching ascribed to a form of labour?

If all resources and commodities are truely communal, then we don't have to worry about any of this.

[Sputnik_1]

Taking into consideration nowadays overproduction, length of a full time work day, and overwhelming unemployment I think that people wouldn't work longer than 2-3 hours per day in order to produce what is necessary and in order for everyone to have a job. If you're an artist you basically can both work and realize yourself in art. Also, you art could be connected to your work - if you're a writer you could teach to write other people etc. I don't think and I don't want to believe that in communist society art would disappear, there is no such an option. Theatre, music, books etc won't cease to exist, I think that they are too important in people's lives. And everyone, independently on what they do as their job, will get as much as they need.

[∞]

I might be the first one to say this but, making music is not a profession. People who play music and do no actual work, don't deserve money for it. In a communist society one could play music as a hobby and will have the same means as anyone else to make it popular. S/he would be renound but not rich.

[hatzel]

In contemporary society, only the very lucky can dedicate themselves entirely to artistic endeavours; the majority don't have the free time available that they may like, relegating their creativity to an evening-and-weekend activity, so that inspiration can only be welcomed when it emerges during the dedicated 'creative hours.' Of course this is terribly stifling. The demise of capitalism ought to bring with it the liberation of the artist from financial necessity, so that all who wish to may create. All productive activity can then be seen on the level of art, social sculpture in its broadest possible scope.

[Lanky Wanker]

I've been wondering for some time now: what about musicians that would like to go on tour? I myself hope to play across the UK with my band sometime (on an underground level, no popstar crap) and obviously working while travelling to the other side of the country is not exactly an easy thing to do. Would it be possible for a musician to make up for this time off by working double the hours before/after the time off for touring?

[Ocean Seal]

I might be the first one to say this but, making music is not a profession. People who play music and do no actual work, don't deserve money for it. In a communist society one could play music as a hobby and will have the same means as anyone else to make it popular. S/he would be renound but not rich.
I somewhat hope that this post isn't serious. If it is, then I'll address it in the following way. It is still stuck within the capitalist mind frame. That there is useful and useless labor. Useful labor creates commodities and useless labor does not. Useless labor is that of scientists, musicians, artists, etc. The means of production under capitalism can produce more than enough for everyone and do not require everyone to be working them. In fact with a good majority of the people working the means of production we could easily have 6 hour workdays. And if we implement socialism we would be creating at even greater rates and we wouldn't have the problems which come as a result of capitalism as the mode of production (problems of distribution). Under socialism we would have more musicians, more artists, and more scientists helping advance society as more and more labor is phased out by the tendency of production to grow. And since production is only meant to satisfy human needs then we don't need to produce in excess like the capitalists; this means that humanity from its creative ends continues to grow. And finally under communism we would flourish as a society constantly looking to the stars to expand, building more and more beautiful things without having to worry about the ugliness of capitalism.

[Franz Fanonipants]

not to love up on Hugo Chavez too much (I know ultralefts will hiss "STATE CAPITALISM" at the first chance), but Chavez's state does a lot to patronize the arts in proletarian communities. i imagine that post-revolution there should be a cultural blossoming, community centers that provide youths with the ability to make and record their own music, create films, etc. will be fully staffed and well equipped without profit motives getting in the way of distribution of the means of art production.

[RefusedPP]

Thank you for the response so far :) Apologise for my poorly worded question to begin with (late night/early morning musings), but I think people have satisfied the criteria of my initial question.

I had considered the fact that a musician for example can have a productive job as well as playing as a hobby, but as GK95 raised - how would they go about performing their work? I think art and music are important aspects of society and they shouldn't be excluded, as Sputnik_1 correctly alluded, from communist/socialist society. The question really extends to any person who isn't in the process of creating tangible commodities, for example an experimental physicist who works mainly in theory. My supposition would be that a person has a particular job title, they take what they need and give back to society with the best of their ability (i.e. a scientist who is good at problem solving, or a lumberjack who is good at cutting down trees). :cool:

[bcbm]

I might be the first one to say this but, making music is not a profession. People who play music and do no actual work, don't deserve money for it.

what about people who make music for tv shows and like orchestras and shit

[Franz Fanonipants]

what about people who make music for tv shows and like orchestras and shit

bourgeois decadence

[hatzel]

Would it be possible for a musician to make up for this time off by working double the hours before/after the time off for touring?

Never really understood why everybody is always so obsessed with people doing their full X hours of officially sanctioned work or whatever it is we 'have' to do to be good people...

[∞]

You cannot make a living being a musician, sorry, not every jackwit with an acoustic guitar deserves equal treatment as proles in a communist society. Scientists do research and that leads to breakthrough discoveries in other fields.

Music =/labor

In the first place.

[bcbm]

You cannot make a living being a musician, sorry, not every jackwit with an acoustic guitar deserves equal treatment as proles in a communist society.



what about the examples i gave? being an orchestra member for example is a lot of work. and anyway, i don't think in a communist society everyone would be pigeon-holed into one thing they 'make a living' from as it is today... you can be a scientist in the morning, a musician at midday and a lumberjack in the afternoon or whatever

also nobody would be a 'prole'


Scientists do research and that leads to breakthrough discoveries in other fields.

so?

[hatzel]

What's all this I hear about 'making a living'? :confused:

[Sosa]

Why not? The musician provide society with a service

[Lanky Wanker]

Never really understood why everybody is always so obsessed with people doing their full X hours of officially sanctioned work or whatever it is we 'have' to do to be good people...

Well all I meant is that if I'm gonna go and rock out with my cock out while everyone else is actually contributing valuable labour to society, that's not very fair.

[Turinbaar]

You cannot make a living being a musician, sorry, not every jackwit with an acoustic guitar deserves equal treatment as proles in a communist society. Scientists do research and that leads to breakthrough discoveries in other fields.

Music =/labor

In the first place.

Yes because the number crunchers of string theory and those chemists turning out viagra have been such a beneficial productive force. Oh and Oppenheimer, there was a great gem of creation we all owe thanks to. You can't make a living tinkering as a "scientist" in you mother's basement either. You need a shower of state or corporate patronage because otherwise your tinkering is fruitless.

Have you ever played music before? Have you ever done a full on performance? Have you ever even sung a song before? Have you ever done this for eight hours straight? Do you think you could keep time or even hold a tune for ten seconds? Records and albums are commodities, as are sheet music and lyrics, which take time and labor to produce. Musicians and artists contribute to the consciousness and revolutionary spirit of humanity just as much as science and setting the proletarian against them shows nothing but how crude and dull an anti-artistic outlook can manifest itself.

[hatzel]

Well all I meant is that if I'm gonna go and rock out with my cock out while everyone else is actually contributing valuable labour to society, that's not very fair.

You've actually chanced upon the most damning criticism of communism yet articulated: that its functioning demands people do only what is 'fair,' that they work as society would have them work. As such, it is grounded on the moralistic creation of two groups, 'Good' and 'Bad,' determined by whether one's contribution is considered adequate or inadequate, with society's respect and scorn respectively cast onto them, to dis/en-courage their activity. Arguably a social order entire premised on such a moral code, presumably enforced through guilt-mongering (already you're doubting whether your intentions are 'fair,' thereafter contemplating handing decisions about your lifestyle over to a third party, even without anybody actively pressuring you to do so) is both undesirable and counterproductive, though this could be questioned.

I don't deny, incidentally, that communism needn't necessarily function in this fashion, with the individual subsumed, though this thread should be evidence enough that communists all too often fall back on this position, already attacking 'unproductive' ('productive' of course being an entirely subjective term, it seems) individuals in a hypothetical. When all this stuff comes along for real, I can't see how the approach would be any different. Personally, however, I have little interest in dictating which activities are to be recognised as productive by society, and who will be left to languish in shady corners...

[Tovarisch]

You can't not pay people for producing arts though. Art, music, and writing have for decades been associated with left-wing radicalism and communism. Marxism could have never happened if Freddy Engels didn't agree to support Marx financially

Artists should not be paid more than regular workers, but they shouldn't be left out on the street either

[Lanky Wanker]

You've actually chanced upon the most damning criticism of communism yet articulated: that its functioning demands people do only what is 'fair,' that they work as society would have them work. As such, it is grounded on the moralistic creation of two groups, 'Good' and 'Bad,' determined by whether one's contribution is considered adequate or inadequate, with society's respect and scorn respectively cast onto them, to dis/en-courage their activity. Arguably a social order entire premised on such a moral code, presumably enforced through guilt-mongering (already you're doubting whether your intentions are 'fair,' thereafter contemplating handing decisions about your lifestyle over to a third party, even without anybody actively pressuring you to do so) is both undesirable and counterproductive, though this could be questioned.

I don't deny, incidentally, that communism needn't necessarily function in this fashion, with the individual subsumed, though this thread should be evidence enough that communists all too often fall back on this position, already attacking 'unproductive' ('productive' of course being an entirely subjective term, it seems) individuals in a hypothetical. When all this stuff comes along for real, I can't see how the approach would be any different. Personally, however, I have little interest in dictating which activities are to be recognised as productive by society, and who will be left to languish in shady corners...

I don't mean to sound all "this is good, this is bad", I'm just still unclear on where this would all fit in under communism.

[Sputnik_1]

ok, so musicians are useless? I don't know you but i like movies, I like theatre, I like games and I'm not planning to accept a reality in which all those are without a good soundtrack. Also, music itself is a kind of service. Of course shitty commercialized dependent music is out of question but let's not generalize - people spend their entire lives trying to improve in order to create the finest music, art etc. It's not always "just a hobby". Also, let people be people, we have feelings, passion, creativity. Being able to express them freely and share them with others should be a right not a privilege like it is now.

[Decommissioner]

I've been wondering for some time now: what about musicians that would like to go on tour? I myself hope to play across the UK with my band sometime (on an underground level, no popstar crap) and obviously working while travelling to the other side of the country is not exactly an easy thing to do. Would it be possible for a musician to make up for this time off by working double the hours before/after the time off for touring?

Then you would simply go on tour.

Bands on the underground level already do this under capitalism, it would only be easier under socialism.

I would imagine that we wouldn't be spending our daily lives toiling at some job, and if you did happen to be expected to work during a time you wanted to tour, it wouldn't be hard to take off and find someone else to fill your position.

[RefusedPP]

Artists should not be paid more than regular workers, but they shouldn't be left out on the street either

I agree. It is difficult I believe to define the effort of work one has subjected themselves to in a creative endeavour. I am really unsure how that could work but I am adamant on the fact that I do not believe art should not dissipate. One thing I abhor about Stalin was his strict views on art and how he denounced profound composers such as Dmitri Shostakovich (one of my beloved soviet era composers).


I have little interest in dictating which activities are to be recognised as productive by society, and who will be left to languish in shady corners...

I believe it is important to recognise productivity but difficult to quantise it. When a farmer plants seeds he creates food (which is then refined, produced etc), truly benefiting humanity as food is a necessity. When an artist paints a picture or composes a song, on a productivity level what does that achieve? Logically nothing... but I believe from my admittedly subjective opinion art is important. Or as previously stated, should it be extra productive activities?

[Sputnik_1]

I believe it is important to recognise productivity but difficult to quantise it. When a farmer plants seeds he creates food (which is then refined, produced etc), truly benefiting humanity as food is a necessity. When an artist paints a picture or composes a song, on a productivity level what does that achieve? Logically nothing... but I believe from my admittedly subjective opinion art is important. Or as previously stated, should it be extra productive activities?

Why to be so terribly judgemental about people's productivity? So someone is gonna actually decide if what you do is useful enough? and if that "someone" decides it's not you'll be forced to abandon it and start doing something else? As a communist I believe that people are able to somehow naturally balance their work in a communist society in order to produce according to the general need and their abilities/preferences. Also, we run the planet only thanks to that our curiosity, creativity that drove us through centuries, that thing that makes us so different from other species. We not only see utility and practical features of things, we also see their beauty and aesthetics side of them. That's why since we developed that uniqueness we also started painting on the walls, making jewelry and putting on make up.

[Ocean Seal]

You cannot make a living being a musician, sorry, not every jackwit with an acoustic guitar deserves equal treatment as proles in a communist society. Scientists do research and that leads to breakthrough discoveries in other fields.

Music =/labor

In the first place.
I agree with the question of scientists, but you still haven't answered my question as to why we shouldn't see the making of music as labor. I would argue that for the best musicians it is very labor intensive to put out music. And what of people who want entertainment in music but would not like to play anything themselves? I am one of those people who would rather appreciate the arts than participate in them. Shouldn't our society liberated from austerity allow culture to flow at even greater rates?

[∞]

I agree with the question of scientists, but you still haven't answered my question as to why we shouldn't see the making of music as labor. I would argue that for the best musicians it is very labor intensive to put out music. And what of people who want entertainment in music but would not like to play anything themselves? I am one of those people who would rather appreciate the arts than participate in them. Shouldn't our society liberated from austerity allow culture to flow at even greater rates?

The value of entertainment is a purely subjective preference with no way of maximizing any real aspect of society, aside from culturally. Making music has no relation to the exchange of resource whereas science has the potential to increase the society's infrastructure. Should people who make pornos get paid a wage too? A musician can make all the music he/she wants in his spare time. But they still have to actually do something for a communist society physically. They will still have the resource available to them to show off their talent.

I don't any jackwit with an acoustic guitar making a living as a "musician".

I for one love me philosophy. However, I never believe "philosopher" is an actual profession. Aside from the philosophizing that occurs in natural sciences.

To be blunt, musicians should only make a living as a musician in a communist society if their music actually sells.

[Sperm-Doll Setsuna]

To be blunt, musicians should only make a living as a musician in a communist society if their music actually sells.

Will people have to pay for culture? To attend a concert? Buy music like today, from record companies? That sounds like nothing changed.

[∞]

Will people have to pay for culture? To attend a concert? Buy music like today, from record companies? That sounds like nothing changed.

I'm not going to point out the specifics. Maybe sells may not be the most appropriate word to describe it. I would say if they put the labor in the music and it actually becomes something people listen to a living would be okay. As long as these musicians are able to produce their commodity and have it demanded.

[RefusedPP]

Why to be so terribly judgemental about people's productivity? So someone is gonna actually decide if what you do is useful enough? and if that "someone" decides it's not you'll be forced to abandon it and start doing something else? As a communist I believe that people are able to somehow naturally balance their work in a communist society in order to produce according to the general need and their abilities/preferences. Also, we run the planet only thanks to that our curiosity, creativity that drove us through centuries, that thing that makes us so different from other species. We not only see utility and practical features of things, we also see their beauty and aesthetics side of them. That's why since we developed that uniqueness we also started painting on the walls, making jewelry and putting on make up.

I am not sure if you entirely understood me, or if I am understanding you correctly for that matter. In our current system the success of an artist can be measured by their sales perhaps, and that is how they make their living. For example a band sells 10,000 CD's and that money is distributed amongst the band and they can therefore use that money to support themselves financially, by buying food etc.

I am not talking about the ridiculous amounts of money all these pseudo-musicians earn, but people who truly contribute to creativity - and about 95% of musicians I believe are on the breadline. In a communist society, how would a musician/artist distribute their work, or perform it and if they dedicate time to it as a profession how would that transcribe as work? They are offering the service of entertainment as well as indulging in creativity, which are both positive and I believe to be productive and motivating things.

The problem I have with measurable productivity (or being too judgemental as Sputnik_1 implied), is such: As I said the success of an artist can be measured by how many albums they have sold thereby being able to support themselves as well as knowing people are enjoying their music. But if in communism somebody decides to sit down and draw circles on paper and call it art, how is it 'fair' that he receives an equal portion for his 'ability' as everybody else. It's subjective as to whether or not that is art or not, but must be measurable as to whether or not sitting and drawing circles all day is actually contributing to society.


Records and albums are commodities, as are sheet music and lyrics, which take time and labor to produce.

I think what Turinbaar said is a good way of viewing this problem. Where a clog maker produces the commodity of shoes, the musician creates the commodity of music. This would answer how an artist can distribute their work as a commodity.

I think the biggest thing for me to get my head around is that there has been plenty of criticism upon capitalism (of which I agree with) but I don't feel that a practical solution has yet been contrived for true communism. (Or I'm uneducated :laugh:).

---

With what was just said I thought of an idea -

A person (referred to as a male) is working at a farm for 6 hours a day. In the evening he sits down with a piano (which would be publicly owned? But maybe given a time period for usability by a signature) and begins composing music. This goes on for several weeks whilst still working at the farm every day and eventually decides he has finished his piece of music.

On completion of his music he has it all composed on paper and records it at a studio in a digital format. He then sends it to a place of production & distribution for a trial run. He promotes himself and people take copies of his work, and how many copies taken would dictate his productivity. So the production & distribution guys make more copies and more people get it, due to this popular demand eventually he is then able to leave the farm and performs piano for 6 hours a day at concerts.

Is this not too complicated?

[Firebrand]

The whole point of working towards a communist society is so that we can move past these primitive notions that people should be obliged to work. The idea is that people will look around them and see what needs to be done, and they will look at themselves and see what they can do. And then they will do it. No set working hours, no wage, no-one passing judgement on whose work is more valuable or worthy. People should have the option of doing manual job, or a filing job, or making music or pictures, or even doing nothing at all. People should be able to switch jobs from day to day at will (note if qualifications are required for a job they would have to get them first).
People fundamentally want to make the world a better place and if they think there aren't enough shoes in the world they will work in a shoe factory until the situation is sorted, if they think the world needs more music they will make it.
Admittedly there will be some jobs no-one wants to do but if you declared one day a lets sort out the bins day and said right guys if we all muck in we hopefully won't end up knee deep in rats then i'm sure enough people would volunteer to make it work, most people are sensible about that sort of thing.

[bcbm]

The value of entertainment is a purely subjective preference with no way of maximizing any real aspect of society, aside from culturally. Making music has no relation to the exchange of resource whereas science has the potential to increase the society's infrastructure. Should people who make pornos get paid a wage too? A musician can make all the music he/she wants in his spare time. But they still have to actually do something for a communist society physically. They will still have the resource available to them to show off their talent.

I don't any jackwit with an acoustic guitar making a living as a "musician".

I for one love me philosophy. However, I never believe "philosopher" is an actual profession. Aside from the philosophizing that occurs in natural sciences.

To be blunt, musicians should only make a living as a musician in a communist society if their music actually sells.

'wage' 'make a living' 'sells' you sure your etalking about communsm?

[Franz Fanonipants]

guys labor is human nature, labor is essentially creativity.

[Summerspeaker]

I basically second Firebrand. Until it becomes a practical problem, I don't really care if a lot of people just hang around and drink beer after the revolution. My ideal involves dividing up the basic labor between everybody in small shares and leaving the rest of our time to whatever we desire, but each community would have to decide the details for themselves.

[Sputnik_1]

I am not sure if you entirely understood me, or if I am understanding you correctly for that matter. In our current system the success of an artist can be measured by their sales perhaps, and that is how they make their living. For example a band sells 10,000 CD's and that money is distributed amongst the band and they can therefore use that money to support themselves financially, by buying food etc.

I am not talking about the ridiculous amounts of money all these pseudo-musicians earn, but people who truly contribute to creativity - and about 95% of musicians I believe are on the breadline. In a communist society, how would a musician/artist distribute their work, or perform it and if they dedicate time to it as a profession how would that transcribe as work? They are offering the service of entertainment as well as indulging in creativity, which are both positive and I believe to be productive and motivating things.

The problem I have with measurable productivity (or being too judgemental as Sputnik_1 implied), is such: As I said the success of an artist can be measured by how many albums they have sold thereby being able to support themselves as well as knowing people are enjoying their music. But if in communism somebody decides to sit down and draw circles on paper and call it art, how is it 'fair' that he receives an equal portion for his 'ability' as everybody else. It's subjective as to whether or not that is art or not, but must be measurable as to whether or not sitting and drawing circles all day is actually contributing to society.

I see you point, but such doubts i think could be applied in basically every sector: if someone just decides to be a chef but he can't cook and his food tastes horrible, or if someone just starts making a really bad shoes no one wants to wear cause are not comfortable etc. Here comes also something like trust in other people. I trust that in a communist society everyone would do their best to contribute the society the best they can. There is no satisfaction in making something no one else appreciate and artists are usually seeking for a good feed-back. Everyone will do best they can to contribute the society. Of course initially not everyone all of a sudden will adopt such way of thinking and many will just try to oppose it or just be unproductive. Transitory phase will most probably be not only about overthrowing the base, in my opinion it will also be just as importantly about changing the super structure (which with a new communist society would come eventually).

[∞]

'wage' 'make a living' 'sells' you sure your etalking about communsm?

Not it's truest form. I don't see that as happening in the next 50-100 years even with an established socialist society.

(People unwilling to participate in a communist society should not expect anyone's support).

[Leo]

You guys know there is no division of labor in a communist society, right? So this means there aren't any musicians, workers, artists, fishermen, bakers, farmers, writers etc. Everyone does all the things they are good at as well as possible. Communism is, physically, mentally and artistically, the true realization of human potential. And there is no money, no wages, no regulation - human beings take what they need to consume when they can consume them.

[RefusedPP]

I see you point, but such doubts i think could be applied in basically every sector: if someone just decides to be a chef but he can't cook and his food tastes horrible, or if someone just starts making a really bad shoes no one wants to wear cause are not comfortable etc. Here comes also something like trust in other people. I trust that in a communist society everyone would do their best to contribute the society the best they can. There is no satisfaction in making something no one else appreciate and artists are usually seeking for a good feed-back. Everyone will do best they can to contribute the society. Of course initially not everyone all of a sudden will adopt such way of thinking and many will just try to oppose it or just be unproductive. Transitory phase will most probably be not only about overthrowing the base, in my opinion it will also be just as importantly about changing the super structure (which with a new communist society would come eventually).

And that is how I believe it should be also. I just think it'd be a system of inequality if as somebody said before about dustbins. If people think the street is smelling then certain people are going to clean it up, other people will sit there and complain about it and wait for somebody else to do something about it - and then eventually it's always going to be the same people cleaning it up and the same people exploiting them. I don't think it is possible to change 100% of people's way of thinking, but I think that such a society would be 100% more favourable when we do live communally!

I agree with what you have said, I am a musician myself and I'm interested in people listening to my music and appreciating it far, far, far more than earning money from it. I need to read more about base and superstructure. :)

And on a side note as regards to ones ability to make shoes (for example) comfortable or not, there should be a way in which people's abilities can be applied to where best. If a man is poor at making shoes but good at other forms of manual labour then he should be doing those instead - whoever determines whether he is good at making them or not that is!

[Firebrand]

We have to trust in peoples better natures. If we don't believe that freed from the constaints of capital people will independently choose to act for the good of themselves and each other then why do we believe that a communist society will work. We have to trust that people won't just sit there an watch other people do all the work while they vegetate in front of the telly. To be honest that sounds like a sad and lonely existance anyway. Given time I think people would get bored of watching daytime tv and decide to do something constuctive with their time. And if they didn't then they would probably be eliminated by heart disease caused by eating too much rubbish and doing no exercise so they wouldn't be an issue for long.

[cenv]

If in a stateless communist society where everybody adheres to Marx's "From each according to his ability, to each according to his need" slogan, and there is no money; then I would like to pose a question.

If one performs labour, for example working in a factory making shoes a person works for eight hours, thereby earning 'eight hours' worth of commodities (such as food). How do people of non-manual 'labour' gain commodities. For example, an author writes a novel, or a songwriter composes a song - is there no way for them to exchange their creativity with commodities? And if there was, who could determine the amount of hours an author has spend writing the book and how much that entitles them to in commodities? That wouldn't be fair. Have I got totally the wrong idea? Somebody enlighten me :unsure:

The same question applies to people of academia. I think it is important for people to be educated so how is teaching ascribed to a form of labour?
Your question assumes that post-revolutionary society is organized around abstract labor, that a certain amount of menial labor is equivalent to a certain amount of artistic labor. Abstract labor as a central governing principle of social life is a key feature of capitalism because it allows everything to be represented in terms of exchange value, but this isn't true of communism. It's as pointless to search for an abstract equivalence between art and menial labor as it is to make moralistic judgments about which one is more "productive" or "better for society."

Similarly, the question of whether art/writing/whatever is a legit "occupation" is really just an extension of the commodifying logic of capitalism whereby intellectual and artistic pursuits need to be framed in terms of economic specialization to be deemed "socially useful." Communism isn't just capitalism without money and bosses -- its a rejection of the idea that human experience needs to have an economic function. Art, science, philosophy, and so on aren't equivalent to menial work, nor will they be treated as such in post-revolutionary society -- not because intellectual labor is "bourgeois decadence" but because freeing art (or whatever) from the constraint of presenting itself as a commodity opens up entirely new possibilities for human creativity.

The point is to distribute mundane tasks equitably so everyone (who wants to) can participate in the awesomeness that is art and music and thinking, instead of making culture an economic sector to be produced by a select few specialists and consumed by a mass of passive onlookers.

[RefusedPP]

Your question assumes that post-revolutionary society is organized around abstract labor, that a certain amount of menial labor is equivalent to a certain amount of artistic labor. Abstract labor as a central governing principle of social life is a key feature of capitalism because it allows everything to be represented in terms of exchange value, but this isn't true of communism. It's as pointless to search for an abstract equivalence between art and menial labor as it is to make moralistic judgments about which one is more "productive" or "better for society."

Similarly, the question of whether art/writing/whatever is a legit "occupation" is really just an extension of the commodifying logic of capitalism whereby intellectual and artistic pursuits need to be framed in terms of economic specialization to be deemed "socially useful." Communism isn't just capitalism without money and bosses -- its a rejection of the idea that human experience needs to have an economic function. Art, science, philosophy, and so on aren't equivalent to menial work, nor will they be treated as such in post-revolutionary society -- not because intellectual labor is "bourgeois decadence" but because freeing art (or whatever) from the constraint of presenting itself as a commodity opens up entirely new possibilities for human creativity.

The point is to distribute mundane tasks equitably so everyone (who wants to) can participate in the awesomeness that is art and music and thinking, instead of making culture an economic sector to be produced by a select few specialists and consumed by a mass of passive onlookers.

Thanks, this post was very useful! :)