The Arts in Communism?

[Ritzy Cat]

After reading some more on communism I have come across a disparity in the validity of the artist or the writer, and the nurse, lumberjack, etc.

In your opinion, what value does the composition of new music, creation of artwork, writing novels have in a communist society? While of course - in terms of production, they are not nearly as important as those who actually contribute to the resources of society.

However, what value do these people have in a Communist society?

[Taters]

None whatsoever. Communist society tolerates no outliers, no so-called intellectuals,and especially (need it be said!) 'artists'. There is no room for sentimental 'creatives' and the like; there is only room for those who do their duty this future society ascribes them and do it well.
If 'artists' (I prefer to call them aesthetic workers) are to make anything, they should only make such works that inspire others to contribute yet more to their community.

[Sabot Cat]

None whatsoever. Communist society tolerates no outliers, no so-called intellectuals,and especially (need it be said!) 'artists'. There is no room for sentimental 'creatives' and the like; there is only room for those who do their duty this future society ascribes them and do it well.
If 'artists' (I prefer to call them aesthetic workers) are to make anything, they should only make such works that inspire others to contribute yet more to their community.

I would loathe to live in such a spiritually dead society of philistines. Art is the pinnacle of freedom from the alienation of one's labor, because it can be a means of expressing one's feelings and conception of the world in a nuance that may not be captured with everyday conversations; the value that art has in human civilization can be seen in its ubiquity within it. No matter what culture you are immersed in, you have books and music and paintings and sculptures and things that invoke beauty and wonder in the literal billions that enjoy their various manifestations. People want art. People need art. And that necessitates artists to produce it.

[Anti-Traditional]

I think taters is only janking your chain

[Sabot Cat]

I think taters is only janking your chain

But what's the point of someone setting up a strawman if no one triumphantly beats the stuffing out of it? :grin:

Although honestly, I have seen this sentiment sincerely expressed by some.

[Taters]

I would loathe to live in such a spiritually dead society of philistines. Art is the pinnacle of freedom from the alienation of one's labor, because it can be a means of expressing one's feelings and conception of the world in a nuance that may not be captured with everyday conversations; the value that art has in human civilization can be seen in its ubiquity within it. No matter what culture you are immersed in, you have books and music and paintings and sculptures and things that invoke beauty and wonder in the literal billions that enjoy their various manifestations. People want art. People need art. And that necessitates artists to produce it.

All I hear is the faint buzzing of romantic sentimentalism. 'Beauty'?' Wonder'? Of what use are these to the communist? You don't need art anymore than you need a blow to the head.

[Brandon's Impotent Rage]

After reading some more on communism I have come across a disparity in the validity of the artist or the writer, and the nurse, lumberjack, etc.

In your opinion, what value does the composition of new music, creation of artwork, writing novels have in a communist society? While of course - in terms of production, they are not nearly as important as those who actually contribute to the resources of society.

However, what value do these people have in a Communist society?


You ask a good question, comrade.

In my view, the arts serve three important purposes to the world:

1. They allow people to express themselves in ways that simple words and actions cannot.

2. They provide both entertainment and insight to those who consume said art.

3. They circulate the free exchange of ideas in ways that need not be stuffy and plain.


Without the arts, existence would be naught but a dreary series of tasks and neccessities.

[Sabot Cat]

All I hear is the faint buzzing of romantic sentimentalism. 'Beauty'?' Wonder'? Of what use are these to the communist? You don't need art anymore than you need a blow to the head.

Even if that may be the case (it is not, obviously), the liberated proletariat will decide for themselves if they want beauty and wonder in their lives through art. Considering most do now, I'm not sure why they wouldn't.

[Taters]

Even if that may be the case (it is not, obviously), the liberated proletariat will decide for themselves if they want beauty and wonder in their lives through art. Considering most do now, I'm not sure why they wouldn't.

The liberated proletariat will not be shackled by petty romanticism. They desire art now only because their conditions are bleak.

[Sabot Cat]

The liberated proletariat will not be shackled by petty romanticism. They desire art now only because their conditions are bleak.

If that were the case, why would the bourgeois ever be patrons of any art? Shouldn't their affluence insulate them from a desire to want it?

[Sinister Cultural Marxist]

The only art allowed will be crass, simplistic, soulless Socialist Realism which depicts various leaders inspiring workers and peasants.

Workers will like it because the party bureaucrats will explain to them that it is the kind of work which they are supposed to like. No petty-bourgeois nonsense like "subtext" or "inner meaning", workers don't have time to think for themselves.

[Taters]

If that were the case, why would the bourgeois ever be patrons of any art? Shouldn't their affluence insulate them from a desire to want it?

They are consummate romantics and the purveyors of all things vain and decadent. The bourgeoisie immortalize their primacy over the proletariat through their art and their patronage of it. Proletarians, in their currently weak state, seek to emulate their masters and find themselves having similar tastes.

[Taters]

The only art allowed will be crass, simplistic, soulless Socialist Realism which depicts various leaders inspiring workers and peasants.

Workers will like it because the party bureaucrats will explain to them that it is the kind of work which they are supposed to like. No petty-bourgeois nonsense like "subtext" or "inner meaning", workers don't have time to think for themselves.

I find Socialist Realism somewhat still attached to romanticism. You are quite right to note that such things are bourgeois, not because "workers don't have time to think for themselves" but rather that these things are unimportant to a liberated proletariat.

[Sabot Cat]

They are consummate romantics and the purveyors of all things vain and decadent. The bourgeoisie immortalize their primacy over the proletariat through their art and their patronage of it. Proletarians, in their currently weak state, seek to emulate their masters and find themselves having similar tastes.

Or maybe art is a facet of humanity that has been around since the era of primitive communism, and people of different classes enjoy it because there are aspects of art broadly valued by all of us.

On the same token, your theory is not likely because art predates the capitalist mode of production.


I find Socialist Realism somewhat still attached to romanticism. You are quite right to note that such things are bourgeois, not because "workers don't have time to think for themselves" but rather that these things are unimportant to a liberated proletariat.

Who died and made you the one who mandates what is and isn't important to the liberated proletariat? Doesn't the whole "liberated" part imply that they will shape their own values?

[Ritzy Cat]

A point that I ask this question is that I enjoy writing music, but I don't really do it for any specific purpose other than entertainment.

Surely these would not be definite careers in a communist society, but in-time and time between workers may take it upon themselves to create "art" for personal entertainment, yes?

[Fourth Internationalist]

After reading some more on communism I have come across a disparity in the validity of the artist or the writer, and the nurse, lumberjack, etc.

In your opinion, what value does the composition of new music, creation of artwork, writing novels have in a communist society? While of course - in terms of production, they are not nearly as important as those who actually contribute to the resources of society.

However, what value do these people have in a Communist society?

Taking into account the fact that the work day could be cut much shorter in communism (perhaps to the point where, if technology is further developed, people wouldn't even have to work every day or even every other day), anyone and everyone would have the time to do what their heart desires whether it be music, drawing, painting, writing, acting, etc. The arts will flourish in communism! Communism will be the true start of human history, where the fullest of human potential can be put into every aspect of society.

[Sinister Cultural Marxist]

I find Socialist Realism somewhat still attached to romanticism. You are quite right to note that such things are bourgeois, not because "workers don't have time to think for themselves" but rather that these things are unimportant to a liberated proletariat.

I was being sarcastic. IMO I think it's jumping the gun to ponder as to the kind of artistic standards which a Communist society would have, or a liberated proletariat for that matter. It's impossible to do a proper anthropology or sociology of a society which does not actually exist yet, which is why I think Marx and Engels (wisely) refrained from doing that themselves.

[Ritzy Cat]

Taking into account the fact that the work day could be cut much shorter in communism (perhaps to the point where, if technology is further developed, people wouldn't even have to work every day or even every other day), anyone and everyone would have the time to do what their heart desires whether it be music, drawing, painting, writing, acting, etc. The arts will flourish in communism! Communism will be the true start of human history, where the fullest of human potential can be put into every aspect of society.

Stop it! You are making it tempting to stand in the middle of my local active intersection holding a hammer and sickle, and be arrested by the bourgeois law enforcement for "disturbing the peace"...

[Full Metal Bolshevik]

I always thought than under Communism everyone could or even would be artist.
First, people no longer have to think about starving since their needs are taken care of.
Second, working hours are cut short.

Which would mean people would be less busy, while there's certainly the risk of some people getting depressed and losing their will to live, it would be up to themselves to follow their dreams, and many times it's connected to artistic expression.

[Turinbaar]

I recommend Taters read this article and this book before making statements about art and communism. Marx contradicts his views directly.

http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/subject/art/preface.htm
http://rosswolfe.files.wordpress.com/2012/01/mikhail-lifshitz-the-philosophy-of-art-of-karl-marx.pdf

[TheSocialistMetalhead]

Any revolution that directly opposes art or practising the arts as either a pastime or an actual job can count me out. Also, I agree with a lot Red Rose is saying, especially the part about people desiring art. To say we won't have a need for it after our material needs have been taken care of, is naive at best. Terms like 'human nature' are often thrown around in political debates but in this case, it really needs to be mentioned. If there is anything that is permanently and inherently part of the human psyche and humanity in general, it's the desire to express oneself. This, of course, inevitably leads to the question what qualifies as art and what doesn't but I think that's not what needs to be discussed here.

Oh, and Taters is obviously a troll. At least I hope he is.

[Fourth Internationalist]

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, criticise after dinner, just as I have a mind, without ever becoming hunter, fisherman, herdsman or critic. - Marx, German Ideology (http://marxists.anu.edu.au/archive/marx/works/1845/german-ideology/ch01a.htm#a4) (1845)
There's a specific quote from either Marx or Engels about this, where there's some mention of being an [occupation] one day (day?) and an [occupation] the next. Does anyone know it? It's on the tip of my tongue.

[Aleister Granger]

I would loathe to live in such a spiritually dead society of philistines. Art is the pinnacle of freedom from the alienation of one's labor, because it can be a means of expressing one's feelings and conception of the world in a nuance that may not be captured with everyday conversations; the value that art has in human civilization can be seen in its ubiquity within it. No matter what culture you are immersed in, you have books and music and paintings and sculptures and things that invoke beauty and wonder in the literal billions that enjoy their various manifestations. People want art. People need art. And that necessitates artists to produce it.

I could quote the Communist Manifesto about how the reduced need for labor was going to free man up for the arts and thinking.

Was Marx a schizophrenic?!

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

I think there's a useful shorthand heuristic for these sorts of questions:

If something (in this case, the arts) pre-dates the capitalist mode of production, then odds are good that it will survive the passing of said MOP. That isn't to say that the something in question won't be transformed in some manner (history leaves nothing in the human sphere untouched), perhaps even beyond contemporary recognition. But it will endure in some form.


After reading some more on communism I have come across a disparity in the validity of the artist or the writer, and the nurse, lumberjack, etc.

In your opinion, what value does the composition of new music, creation of artwork, writing novels have in a communist society?

You mean it isn't obvious to you? I sure would quickly get bored of reading the same novels over and again, hearing the same music, seeing the same tropes being recycled in the same manner ad infinitum. Creating quality, original art with a wide appeal takes time, energy and a not insignificant outlay of resources. At the very least, artists need to eat and have a roof over their head like everyone else, and I would be perfectly happy for any society that I live in to devote resources to nurture and support artists in their work.


While of course - in terms of production, they are not nearly as important as those who actually contribute to the resources of society.

I'm afraid I'm going to have to say that you're wrong on this one.

I think the arts are as important as the sciences and the humanities. A society that neglects the sciences dismisses its mind, a society that neglects the humanities empties its heart, and a society that neglects the arts degrades its soul.

The utility of the arts is not easily quantified like the utility of the sciences, and unlike the humanities it can often appear to be undignified, frivolous, or outrageous merely for the sake of it. But seeing as humans have had a diversity of creative outlets since before written history, I don't think it's something that we can easily put aside and ignore. If such a thing were attempted, I reckon we'd see an explosion of graffiti (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Graffiti) all over the plain grey surfaces of a brave new art-free world. Among other things...

[Sinister Intents]

Was Marx a schizophrenic?!

Why does it matter?

Also I see how communism would allow the arts to flourish and prosper :)

[Brandon's Impotent Rage]

Isn't one of the pillars of Marxism the idea that humans are naturally creative beings, and that the existence of alienating labor, due to capitalism, is the biggest barrier to man being able to reach his full creative potential?

[Ritzy Cat]

You mean it isn't obvious to you? I sure would quickly get bored of reading the same novels over and again, hearing the same music, seeing the same tropes being recycled in the same manner ad infinitum. Creating quality, original art with a wide appeal takes time, energy and a not insignificant outlay of resources. At the very least, artists need to eat and have a roof over their head like everyone else, and I would be perfectly happy for any society that I live in to devote resources to nurture and support artists in their work.

I'm sorry? I was just asking a question about everyone's viewpoint on this- sorry I wasn't intelligent enough to read everyone's mind.



I think the arts are as important as the sciences and the humanities. A society that neglects the sciences dismisses its mind, a society that neglects the humanities empties its heart, and a society that neglects the arts degrades its soul.

The utility of the arts is not easily quantified like the utility of the sciences, and unlike the humanities it can often appear to be undignified, frivolous, or outrageous merely for the sake of it. But seeing as humans have had a diversity of creative outlets since before written history, I don't think it's something that we can easily put aside and ignore. If such a thing were attempted, I reckon we'd see an explosion of graffiti (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Graffiti) all over the plain grey surfaces of a brave new art-free world. Among other things...

I agree with what a lot you are saying. My claim was in terms of raw production. Yes, the arts and humanities are important for a many aspects of human's expression, culture, personality... But there is no way you can say that artists will feed the poor, make cars, etc. That's not part of what they do. They are important in the expression of society's culture and showing history through arts, books, and whatnot... but they don't produce tangible, usable goods. I am not saying that is any less important, but they can't provide necessities for civilians.

Humanities does have its purposes as you have properly outlined; but in production, creation of usable, tangible goods for society, they fall flat because that's simply not part of what these people do.

[blake 3:17]

After reading some more on communism I have come across a disparity in the validity of the artist or the writer, and the nurse, lumberjack, etc.

In your opinion, what value does the composition of new music, creation of artwork, writing novels have in a communist society? While of course - in terms of production, they are not nearly as important as those who actually contribute to the resources of society.

However, what value do these people have in a Communist society?

Nothing!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[blake 3:17]

If that were the case, why would the bourgeois ever be patrons of any art? Shouldn't their affluence insulate them from a desire to want it?

A very interesting question & one that operates on several levels.

The best sociological analyses are Supercollector --crudely Marxist -- and David Graeber's Debt.

But on another level -- who cares??? fuckin bust my ass making crazy art & I really want some folks at their laptops deciding if I should do it or not??? good fuckin luck


Not to be disrespectful to anyone -- But people do like art more than pedantic leftist debates.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

I'm sorry? I was just asking a question about everyone's viewpoint on this- sorry I wasn't intelligent enough to read everyone's mind.

Mind-reading isn't necessary, merely the realisation that nearly everyone derives enjoyment from some kind of art, or otherwise has a use for it. It's kind of like writing in that way.


I agree with what a lot you are saying. My claim was in terms of raw production. Yes, the arts and humanities are important for a many aspects of human's expression, culture, personality... But there is no way you can say that artists will feed the poor, make cars, etc. That's not part of what they do. They are important in the expression of society's culture and showing history through arts, books, and whatnot... but they don't produce tangible, usable goods. I am not saying that is any less important, but they can't provide necessities for civilians.

Humanities does have its purposes as you have properly outlined; but in production, creation of usable, tangible goods for society, they fall flat because that's simply not part of what these people do.

I guess my point was that as a species we have developed to a point where we can concern ourselves with things in addition to mere survival. Sure, you can't eat the Mona Lisa and it would make a crap shelter, but we have more than enough resources at our collective disposal to support everyone's basic need and support artistry at the same time.

[anticap]

OP may be interested to read Janet Wolff's entry "aesthetics", from A Dictionary of Marxist Thought. Here's an excerpt:


The notion that all non-alienated labour is creative, and hence intrinsically the same as artistic labour, provides the basis for a humanist aesthetics which successfully demystifies art by encouraging us to look at its historical development and separation from other activities.