Writers, Musicians In Socialist Societies

[Subversive Pessimist]

How are writers, musicians, painters etc. getting there money in a socialist society?

Are they going to be paid per hour? If so, here is where the problem comes up. Situation one:

Some people will most likely be selfish, so they will sit there and paint a little while getting minimum for maximum.

Situation two:

The guy gets a share of the money per book, painting or cd that is sold. Problem:

Equality turns to un-equality, and people will turn over to these professions because that is where people make money. Restoration of capitalism.

How do we solve this problem? Here is one of my ideas that just struck my head... (note that this is an idea and that I am thinking loudly)

The worker gets a percentage per book that is sold. He will try to write good books because these are sold, which means that he will get more money because the product is good.

I guess it is not perfect because it would go against a society where everyone had more or less the same, and if the book is getting on the list of the top 20's in the rich countries, he could be a billionaire, while the guys next door are working 10 hours a day just to get food on the table.


Another solution to the idea would be that the government will set a limit on how much persons in these professions can make, so the rest of the money that goes over that limit will go to the state. The problem here is then that this person might feel that the government is controlling his life, and if he would be living in a capitalist country, he would be rich by now.

Do you have any solution to this problem?

[YKTMX]

How are writers, musicians, painters etc. getting there money in a socialist society?

Your premise is flawed. There will not be people who are "only" musicians or painters but instead everyone will be free to indulge in any artistic deed that contributes to their own personal development.


Some people will most likely be selfish

Why? What's the basis for this assertion?


The guy gets a share of the money per book, painting or cd that is sold

What's this then? Private enterprise and profits? Strange kinda socialism, no?


Equality turns to un-equality, and people will turn over to these professions because that is where people make money. Restoration of capitalism.

Straw man.


The worker gets a percentage per book that is sold. He will try to write good books because these are sold, which means that he will get more money because the product is good

You seem to be implying here that the only reason somehow would write a good book would be to gain materially from doing so. This isn't the case. This is a fasle capitalist mantra whereby material gain is the only incentive to individual human action. Complete nonsense.


The problem here is then that this person might feel that the government is controlling his life, and if he would be living in a capitalist country, he would be rich by now.

The question I would ask you is, how has this "socialist society" come about? You seem to be imagining a socialist "country" populated by capitalists in a world where capitalism still rains. This is highly unplausable.

The next socialist revolutions will probably be worldwide revolutions with "class socieites" becoming the minority state of affairs.

There's a deabte to be had about art and "intellectual property" but I'm not sure this is it.

[Subversive Pessimist]

Your premise is flawed. There will not be people who are "only" musicians or painters but instead everyone will be free to indulge in any artistic deed that contributes to their own personal development.

There are nations like Cuba where there is a constant lack of paper. Many people who are writers cannot afford papers.

Many people would most likely in a poor socialist nation work up to 14 hours a day, and they would not be able, economically (paper costs money) and socially (many people in the third world do not have much time to relax and), to write books in their free time. In small isolated countries where there are few, or any books that are translated, I predict there will be a need for books written by people in the nation. These people cannot do this on their private expense.


By all means, that sounds nice, but we're not talking about communism, but about socialism. Take Nepal, for instance. People do not have the chance to sit in a bath tub listen to Enya while writing poetry, because:

1. They lack the ability to write, because 50 percent of the population in Nepal are illiterate.
2. They lack paper and a pen

Education will be free, but will the government supply papers to these people? If it is going to be a free time activity, the government would most likely at least give them a paper and a pen. What if there is a constant lack of paper, like it most likely is in Nepal? You can't just hand out paper to people because they would most likely use it to toilet paper.



Why? What's the basis for this assertion?


There are a lot of people that I could name in this world that are selfish people. Do you really need names? If your teacher asks a student if they can go out with the garbage, what do you think the likely answer would be?

The people that we are going to govern are people that has been raised and teached that egoism and the likes are good things.



You seem to be implying here that the only reason somehow would write a good book would be to gain materially from doing so.


Absolutely not. I am only trying to present the actual conditions. Most people in the third world can't just sit down and write, because they can't write, they don't have time, paper or money. The government must then supply these things to the population, and as I said this is where the problem gets to our knees.

[YKTMX]

There are nations like Cuba where there is a constant lack of paper. Many people who are writers cannot afford papers

Cuba isn't socialist.


There are a lot of people that I could name in this world that are selfish people. Do you really need names?

Of course there are "selfish" people in the world but here's what socialists believe. Humans aren't "naturally" seflish - they aren't "naturally anything". Capitalism MAKES PEOPLE SELFISH. Marx said "the ruling ideas of any society are the ideas of the ruling class". Capitalism, through education, the media, political institutions etc. makes people believe that "individualism" and "self-interest" are "natural" and "correct. It's a lie. Human's, brought up in the right enviroment, can be "selfless" and "collectivist" just as easily.

"Human beings don't shape their enviroment, the enviroment shapes the human beings".


Many people would most likely in a poor socialist nation work up to 14 hours a day, and they would not be able, economically (paper costs money) and socially (many people in the third world do not have much time to relax and), to write books in their free time. In small isolated countries where there are few, or any books that are translated, I predict there will be a need for books written by people in the nation. These people cannot do this on their private expense.

"Socialist" nations will be even richer than the most advanced capitalist socieites are today. You can't have small, isolated "islands" of socialism in a world full of capitalist societies. It just doesn't work like that.

[Subversive Pessimist]

Cuba isn't socialist.

Todays Cuba isn't socialist today, that is true. I am aware of what happened after the collapse of the Eastern European countries and the "special period" in Cuba. But let us not forget that they stamped everything that was led by corporations out in the 60s, and was replaced and state owned. Many people in the leadership are from what I know dedicated socialists and communists.

Let us not forget what Castro has done for the Cuban people. They had land reforms, the replacement of private to state ownership, the free healthcare and education that was based on socialist principles. They managed in just a few years to lower the rich people's income and wealth by three times, and the workers condition went up seven times. Is this not socialist reforms? Isn't the elimination of the bourgeoise as a class socialist?


From the rest of the post I see that we might have slightly different thoughts on what socialism, or the "dictatorship of the proletariat" is. So if you could give a definition of what you think socialism is then maybe we could understand each ther better.

I will again stress the point that it was an idea, not an opinion of mine.




Of course there are "selfish" people in the world but here's what socialists believe. Humans aren't "naturally" seflish - they aren't "naturally anything". Capitalism MAKES PEOPLE SELFISH. Marx said "the ruling ideas of any society are the ideas of the ruling class". Capitalism, through education, the media, political institutions etc. makes people believe that "individualism" and "self-interest" are "natural" and "correct. It's a lie. Human's, brought up in the right enviroment, can be "selfless" and "collectivist" just as easily.

"Human beings don't shape their enviroment, the enviroment shapes the human beings".

Yes, capitalism makes people selfish, I agree. The problem is that people who are born before the revolution have been thought that egoism is good, and even people in socialist societies (although a minority,) are hostile to the socialist government. Some of people have been born in socialist societies, or at least being heavily influenced by the principles of socialism, but can still be "selfish" (depends on the way you look at the word, of course).


As an example, scientists in Cuba are washing cars for tourists, and doctors are working driving taxis. Many of these people call them "pro-revolutionary" and support the regime, but still they choose another job because they make more money. They know that they might help people if they are working as a scientist, or saving lifes by working as a doctor, but to take another job that doesn't mean anything, because they will make a little more money.

There is nothing more I would like to see then people who are working for the common good instead of oneself, but things are more complicated.


I support having days with volenteer work where people do it at their own intiative in order to improve the mental preperations (couldn't find a better word for the moment) for communism. But many people in the poor world does not have a recording studio at home, or the ability to paint or write a book.

What you are talking about might have worked in a more developed nation, for instance Russia today, but I believe it would not work in backwards and reactionary countries who have just got a few years of socialism on its feet. In the long run yes, it's possible, but I doubt it will in the first 10-15 years.

Perhaps we will understand each other a little better by now...

ComradeStrawberry

[YKTMX]

As an example, scientists in Cuba are washing cars for tourists, and doctors are working driving taxis. Many of these people call them "pro-revolutionary" and support the regime, but still they choose another job because they make more money. They know that they might help people if they are working as a scientist, or saving lifes by working as a doctor, but to take another job that doesn't mean anything, because they will make a little more money

You have said that Cuba isn't socialist. So what relevancy does it have when determining how things might work under socialism?



But many people in the poor world does not have a recording studio at home, or the ability to paint or write a book.

I think the next revolutions will happen in "rich" countries like the U.S. or Britain. However, even if it doesn't and it happens in "poor countries", equal distribution of resources matched by the new democratically planned economies will ensure plenty for everyone in those countries.

[Subversive Pessimist]

You have said that Cuba isn't socialist.


It was socialist before "El Periodo Especial". :)


So what relevancy does it have when determining how things might work under socialism?



Although hiring labor is forbidden, they have private resturants in Cuba now, and they can use the labor of the family members. This is today. Cuba is going through some tough times because of several reasons (mainly the US blockade).

That doesn't mean the government has done everything they can in order to improve the well being of the people in Cuba. As far as I know, they did not have one factory or shop that was privately owned in several decades.

If they really wanted capitalism they could have raised the white flag (no pun intended), and capitalism could gone in full effect on the island. Still, (although we could criticize Castro on several points), the Cuban government is lead by socialist principles and thought.

[The Garbage Disposal Unit]

Of course, hopefully, by a) destroying artwork as alienable from other functions of daily life, and b) abolishing work (Along with money, and state-bureacracies) none of this will apply. In a society geniunely moving toward communism, "art" will ideally be considered in the context of any activity an individual enguages in, and according to the specific situations and interactions involved, rather than by a bunch of revolutionists who think we know some universal truths about art, society, and how artists should be compensated for their *gag* work.

[redstar2000]

This is always the problem when discussing "socialism" -- since it is another form of class society with a state-apparatus, a market, wage-labor, etc., inequities are built in.

And you end up with a lot of inconclusive discussion about how to "reduce" those inequities or keep them from "getting out of hand".

Which is why I am a communist and have no interest in how to make any class society "work better".

I will add that some have suggested there will be no "art" at all in communist society. People will still enjoy, to varying degrees, the art of past centuries...but they won't create any of their own.

Their lives will be their art.

:redstar2000:

The Redstar2000 Papers (http://www.redstar2000papers.fightcapitalism.net)
A site about communist ideas

[The Garbage Disposal Unit]

Hey RedStar, maybe it's simply a question of semantics, but I think the production of what we'd now call art will continue - simply that it will become indistinguishable from life as a whole. I feel we may paint, but it will be like making toast or shooting a cop (And, most importantly, in turn, for a revolutionary, making toast or wasting a pig should be as painting a picture).

[Lossenelin]

I don't think artists need to be compensated for their artwork (music writing etc) The way I see it, if society is working for need and not profit, everything we need can be created by people working just a few hours a week, in their spare time if these people want to create art thats great, but it should be something they create for people to enjoy, not to profit from, Art shouldn't be a comodity.

[ComradeRed]

I will add that some have suggested there will be no "art" at all in communist society. People will still enjoy, to varying degrees, the art of past centuries...but they won't create any of their own. Uhmm... are you joking? I can see how people wouldn't make a living on art, if that is what you are saying, yet to say there will be no art whatsoever is not correct.

[commiecrusader]

Am I missing something here, or isn't it irrelevant how much money a writer, musician or artist makes in a socialist society? Surely they will be supported anyway if they are making a genuine contribution?

[ComradeRed]

Yeah, that's my thoughts sort of. I mean, on one's free time, why couldn't one create art? To be displayed/performed publicly of course.

[flyby]

I have been studying how the Maoists view this question of art under socialism.

They stress the importance of ferment and creativity during change.

http://rwor.org/margorp/a-artscien.htm


Art, Science, Education,
Sports, and the Challenge
of Creating A Whole New Superstructure
in Socialist Society

INTRODUCTION

In capitalist society, the institutions of knowledge, entertainment, and the ideological life of the society—the mass media, schools, laboratories and centers for science, art, education, and sports—are dominated, shaped and twisted to meet the needs of capital and the bourgeois class.

Specialists, artists, and intellectuals—even those who come from the working class and oppressed peoples—are walled off from the masses in many ways, and the system prevents them from serving the people. Elitism and fear of the masses are perpetuated by the system. Greed, prejudice, and superstition infuse the culture. Artists, scientists, and educators who resist are hounded and marginalized. Every scientific advance, everything of beauty—even knowledge itself—is turned into a commodity, and into capital.

The proletarian revolution will liberate and transform all these institutions so that they no longer serve a system of exploitation, inequality, and oppression and, instead, will put them into the hands of the revolutionary masses and their leadership.

The historical experience of the proletariat in power has shown that it is a complex challenge to revolutionize all these spheres, to overcome the domination of the bourgeoisie and unleash the creativity of the masses of people and bring forward something radically new. In carrying out all-around dictatorship over the bourgeoisie, the challenge is to really turn things upside down and do away with oppression without stifling the wrangling over ideas and theories.

The proletarian revolution needs an atmosphere of vigorous and lively struggle, critical thinking, unconventional ideas, people challenging authority, the conflict of different views, and the sights of society raised to cardinal questions. It needs an atmosphere where creativity and experimentation will no longer be motivated by personal gain but for the benefit of society.

The proletarian revolution needs an informed, creative, and revolutionary people, who know about the world and are trained in the outlook of the proletariat—whose historic mission is to liberate all humanity.

Breaking Down the Division of Labor

Our vision is to get to the point where everyone in society is productive and creative in dealing both with ideas and with material things and where neither material things nor ideas are any longer commodities or capital. With the seizure of power we can begin on this path, but getting there will be a process full of twists and turns—involving waves of cultural revolutions and waves of revolution all around the world. And historical experience teaches us that at key turning points this will be a life-and-death struggle for the proletariat to prevent the restoration of bourgeois rule.

A crucial part of revolutionizing society—in the socialist transition to communism—is to break down the oppressive division of labor between those who work with their heads and those who work with their hands. Our method is to work at this from two sides:

From one side, this means leading and assisting the specialists and intellectuals to put their training at the service of the proletariat and to combine this with a critical spirit. It means bringing forward artists, scientists, educators, and other specialists who not only serve socialist construction and scientific experiment but also serve the class struggle, including by raising important and often pressing questions that would otherwise not be raised.

Working at it from the other side, the objective of the proletarian revolution and its new state is to enable the masses to master the different spheres of society, to have a deep appreciation for the contradictions and problems involved—to be “red and expert” and to lead in revolutionizing all these spheres on that basis. In different fields, policies will be developed to combine the work of specialists with the masses—so that non-professionals can lead professionals and specialists can revolutionize their practice in the process of working with the masses.

The principles that people should be “both red and expert” and that the non-professional should lead the professional are crucial for the development of socialist society and the advance to communism. These principles embody a very important understanding:

Each sphere and discipline in the arts, sciences, etc., has its own particular features and concerns, and thus it is necessary for people to apply themselves to and continually learn more about the particular characteristics, contradictions, and laws involved. But at a deeper level, there is a unifying outlook and methodology that can and should be applied to these various fields and disciplines. As Mao Tsetung explained, Marxism does not re*place but does embrace all these spheres.

These principles also give expression to the fact that all these realms can and must be the concern of, and be taken up by, not just a few people specializing in them but by the broad masses of people and ultimately by society as a whole. This is essential so that inequalities in society can be overcome and work in all these spheres can be marked by and benefit from the broadest, most diverse and lively engagement and wrangling, and at the same time can serve the people and the cause of emancipating humanity and continually enhancing our ability to know and change the world.

The Artistic and Intellectual Fields

Our proletarian ideology leads us to appreciate the importance of science and other intellectual and artistic work that more directly serves the ongoing struggle of the proletariat, on the one hand; and, on the other hand, to appreciate scientific inquiry and intellectual engagement and artistic experimentation that is not tied in such a direct way—and certainly not in a pragmatic, “instrumentalist” way—to the policy and more immediate aims of the proletarian party at any given time.

We stress the importance of a fundamentally collective framework and approach to intellectual and artistic work, which also allows for and encourages the initiative of individuals, within the overall collective framework and spirit. Mass movements to study and apply dialectical materialism in all fields will take place in an atmosphere of debate over different views and schools of thought.

The proletariat in power will need a broad united front of scientists, artists, educators, and intellectuals in all fields. For a period of time, the proletariat will be faced with the necessity to rely on many professionals and specialists trained in the old society. We will have to take into account that some of these specialists earned large incomes in the old society, and the proletariat may have to pay non-Party people in these positions quite a bit more than production workers, while we work to train new revolutionary intellectuals and restrict these differences.

MASS MEDIA

Upon coming to power, the proletariat will immediately take control of the mass media—take it out of the hands of the big corporations and the bourgeois state and put it to the service of the world revolution. The reactionary trash on the TV and radio, in the newspapers, etc., will be swept away. In its place will be news, political debate, educational programs, and entertainment that will enable the masses of people to know and change the world.

The major news and information media will be under the direction of the proletarian state and the leadership of the Party. The goal is for the proletariat to master the media—to create public opinion for continuing the revolution, in the context of lively debate over the crucial questions of society and the world revolution. In this spirit, some funds will be allocated for independent publications and media access.

The masses will have unprecedented access to print, broadcast, and electronic media such as the internet. Publishing facilities will be available to the masses on many levels. And special efforts will be made for the proletarians and formerly oppressed nationalities to have access and training in media technologies. International news will be widely available, and there will be an atmosphere of debate over political and international affairs, including the publication of dissenting views.

Counter-revolutionary attempts to overthrow the proletariat will be suppressed; but the main policy of the proletariat in the media will not be censorship but the promotion of debate, criticism, and struggle over the direction of society. Criteria will be developed to assist the masses to evaluate different views and positions (see the appendix “Proletarian Dictatorship, Democracy and the Rights of the People”).

Experimentation and development of new technology will be encouraged in tempo with the technical capacity of *society and the priorities of the world revo*lution.

ART AND CULTURE

Literature and art, theater, music, and movies play a powerful role in shaping public opinion and promoting one kind of outlook and values or another. Anyone who has ever been moved to tears or anger or laughter, had their hopes and sights raised, or been provoked to action by a concert or movie, knows this is true. But what is not obvious is that, in class society, all culture serves the interests of one class or another.

Revolutionary art plays a crucial role leading up to the seizure of power. And once the proletariat seizes power, the creation of a whole new culture is needed to transform all of society. Our goal is a qualitatively new culture that is guided by the outlook of the proletariat and ex*presses its interests in overthrowing everything reactionary and revolutionizing all of society.

This is not a simple question or a problem easily solved: Art is a distinct mode of communication and experience—one way that people understand the world. Art is drawn from life but is “higher than life.” Art can tap deep feelings and aspirations, unleashing the imagination and giving people a deeper understanding of reality and how to change it.

Art plays an important role in people’s lives, connected with our “need to be amazed.” And producing cultural works not only with revolutionary content but also a high level of artistic and technical quality requires people with training and skills.

The masses in the U.S. are accustomed to a large quantity and variety of art. And the masses would not support the proletarian state for long if it failed to meet this need.

With the seizure of power the proletariat will lead in revolutionizing culture—encouraging and supporting diverse works that assist the masses to revolutionize society and the whole world. This revolutionary art will unleash the imagination of the people—free from super*stition.

Our aim is to promote a vigorous pro*cess of creating and popularizing revolutionary culture and criticizing the old op*pres*sive culture, and to encourage a wrangling atmosphere of different trends, schools of thought, and experimentation.

The proletarian state will encourage innovation and variety in forms and styles of art. The people need works with themes that are directly related to the ongoing revolutionary struggles in society and the world, as well as works that are indirectly related but shed light on different contradictions and aspects of life. The proletariat will lead the artists and *masses to develop collective forms for the creation of art, while allowing for and encouraging individual initiative within this collective framework.

Historical experience has shown that the creation of proletarian art involves much conscious struggle over political content and artistic form; and laboratories will be established for the creation of model works—as pacesetters in the arts.

In preparing for revolution, and during the revolutionary war, the proletariat will seek to unite as broadly as possible with professional cultural workers—to develop a vigorous culture of resistance to the old order and to create and popularize revolutionary works of art. And the Party will unite the masses to defend these artists against the attempts of the bourgeoisie to crush them.

Artists and the Masses

With the victory of the revolution, the proletariat will unite as broadly as possible with people in the artistic fields to create a new revolutionary culture for socialist society.

At the same time, we will support, bring forward, and rely on masses of workers and their firm allies in creating and popularizing revolutionary culture—and professional artists will be encouraged to draw from forms and works created by the masses. The revolutionary culture of the youth will be encouraged as a vibrant, transforming force in socialist society.

Works of art and the means to create them will be widely available to the masses* as never before. Cultural productions by professional artists will be staged throughout the country, including in work*places and workers’ neighborhoods for free or a minimal price of admission.

Part-time cultural groups will be organized in workplaces, neighborhoods, farms and rural areas, and in the armed forces, to popularize works produced by professional artists and to unleash and give direction to the creativity of workers and other basic masses in producing revolutionary culture. Emphasis will be given to learning from the innovations of the proletarian youth in the arts and providing arts training to the youth.

The proletariat will foster a “wrangling” atmosphere with regard to works of art. Our aim is to assist the masses in doing away with all the oppressive ideas and ways of thinking, and in developing a new liberating culture that points to a future without class distinctions. The artists and masses will take part in criticizing reactionary works: struggling against racism, national chauvinism, male supremacy, capitalist ideology, and unscientific thinking. And there will be mass dialogue, debate, and criticism concerning the content of revolutionary works and how to develop standards and criteria.

In all this the proletariat will adopt methods and policies that take into account the complexity and levels of meaning and interpretation of works of art. And there will be an atmosphere of experiment and openness to new ideas and trends and learning from different schools of thought. Emphasis will be on creating and popularizing new revolutionary works, but our policy will be to learn from, study and preserve important works of the past—especially works that opposed the old order.

With regard to works of art that reflect discontent with and opposition to the proletarian state, the orientation will not be to suppress them but to develop mass criticism of them. In the policies of the proletarian state there will even be a place for publishing and displaying some reactionary works of high artistic quality to assist the masses in raising their class consciousness, sharpening their ability to distinguish what serves the interests of the masses from what serves their oppressors, and developing their mastery of the whole arena of art and literature. Some reactionary works will have to be suppressed but, again, the basic approach will not be to suppress but to develop mass criticism and debate.

In the arena of culture, the walls separating professional artists and the working masses will be broken down and professional artists will be encouraged and assisted in linking themselves with the masses of working people—to learn from their experiences and ideas in creating cultural works and to assist the masses themselves in creating art.

As part of helping professional artists serve the people through their work, the proletariat will assist them to know the people, to combat elitism, and transform their world outlook. This will include artists taking part in manual labor together with the masses and taking part in political and ideological movements and struggles to continue the revolution.

Through the development of new socialist policies full-time artists will come to know the masses, and worker/artists from the masses will be trained in the skills necessary to produce high quality works of art.

The masses of working people will be supported and led by the Party and the cultural institutions to criticize—and in an overall sense to supervise—the work of professional artists, as well as the cultural works created by the masses themselves. And through this process the masses will learn to lead in and revolutionize the sphere of art and culture.

[redstar2000]

Originally posted by Bob Avakian
Speaking of the transition to communism and the seizure of power as the first great leap in that, to put this somewhat provocatively, it could be said that the goal is to move from where the vanguard is "an enlightened despot" to where there is no despot and no need or basis for one.

http://rwor.org/a/1201/bareach6.htm

I begin with this quote because I think it's important to fully understand the context of flyby's lengthy response to the matter at hand.

When flyby's document speaks of the role of art and artists in post-revolutionary society, it is speaking of a very particular kind of society...one in which the rule of the vanguard party is considered an "enlightened despotism".

Now, if despotism doesn't appeal to you (it doesn't to me!), everything in flyby's document becomes irrelevant -- we will be mainly concerned that such a despotism is not permitted to take power at all.

But if "enlightened despotism" does appeal to you for whatever reason -- you really want someone to give you your orders, you really want to be a despot yourself and give other people orders, etc. -- then there are a few things you should be aware of.

The first is that the artistic taste of society will be the taste of the despots themselves. If the Party leadership likes "rap"...then you'll be hard pressed to escape it -- it will be heard everywhere. But if they don't like "rap", then, at best, it might be heard in a few unlicensed "underground" night clubs.

This will be true, more or less, for all forms of artistic expression.

Resources will flow towards the production and distribution of art that the Party despotism likes and away from whatever the elite dislikes...much as it is now under capitalism.

Artists have to eat just like the rest of us...which has meant, in every form of class society, that they must produce art that those with money are willing to pay for.

In the society which flyby's document discusses, "those with money" will be the state apparatus and the Party despots. So if you want to be a professional artist in their society, you must produce art that pleases them.

The picture that some people have of an artist as a "fortress of integrity" who will remain faithful to his/her artistic vision to the point of starvation is almost completely mythological (late 19th century neo-romanticism, to be exact).

Most artists will do anything for money.

That's no special slur on them; in a class society, most people will do anything for money...that's how we survive.

The art that may be produced by flyby's "enlightened despotism" doesn't necessarily have to be shit; it could be a substantial improvement over what exists now.

Enlightened despots, historically, have tended to have "higher standards" than their subjects...and there's nothing that rules out "good art" or even "great art" in such an environment.

It's part of a theory that goes back to Aristotle and perhaps even Plato: a "good government" is one that "raises" the measure of "civilized behavior" of its subjects; "teaches" its subjects to both appreciate and choose the "good" over the "bad".

Artists who are willing to cooperate with enlightened despots lead a "good life"...they receive material rewards considerably superior to those of the ordinary worker and enhanced status to boot. Of course, there are dangers...despots can be very erratic in their tastes and since their power is unlimited, you could find yourself in a pretty unpleasant situation if they dislike your latest creation.

But that's a risk the artist takes in every form of class society; will the people with power and wealth and status "like" my latest work? Will it sell?

It is only in a classless society that artistic considerations (if there are such things) can come to the forefront.

:redstar2000:

The Redstar2000 Papers (http://www.redstar2000papers.fightcapitalism.net)
A site about communist ideas

[Subversive Pessimist]

I don't think artists need to be compensated for their artwork (music writing etc) The way I see it, if society is working for need and not profit, everything we need can be created by people working just a few hours a week, in their spare time if these people want to create art thats great, but it should be something they create for people to enjoy, not to profit from, Art shouldn't be a comodity.

Gee, I wonder how the worlds music production would be if artists only worked "a few hours a week" :rolleyes:

[God of Imperia]

Why would anyone have to get money for something they do, if they get what they need anyway?

Earning money like that is purely a façade for capitalism, that's not socialism.

Btw, if you like writing, you just write, if you want to make music, you make music. I'm sure that many will like to record their songs, so they can be remebered, but is that an essential part of music, making CD's?

[Subversive Pessimist]

Earning money like that is purely a façade for capitalism, that's not socialism.

Socialism is still a money society. People will need money to survive.

You forget that a lot of writers are writing eight hours a day. They wouldn't be possible if we would have taken your advice.

If they would have to survive, they would maybe have to work 5 hours a day, and that could mean about three hours of writing, intsead of eight. That is just a waste of potential.

Your suggestion is, IMO, almost as ridiculous as saying that an industrial worker, under socialism don't need money because he just loves to work, and that he could make "things" in his spare time.

Socialism is not communism. People will need money in order to surive. If we wouldn't give writers etc. any money in order to at least have their personal economy insured, there would not have been many books produced, I can insure you that.

[flyby]

I posted some writings by the RCP on how artists and writers will work and contribute under socialism.

RS responded by posting a sentence by the RCP's leader Bob Avakian. And this was an example of taking something out of context to distort its meaning.

RS quotes Avakian saying: "Speaking of the transition to communism and the seizure of power as the first great leap in that, to put this somewhat provocatively, it could be said that the goal is to move from where the vanguard is "an enlightened despot" to where there is no despot and no need or basis for one."

RS then writes: "flyby's document speaks of the role of art and artists in post-revolutionary society, it is speaking of a very particular kind of society...one in which the rule of the vanguard party is considered an "enlightened despotism"."

I will give you the whole thing in a second, so you can read it in context (and get what Avakian is dealing with and struggling over.)

But for now lets just note that Avakian names this section of his article: "Doing Away with Despots."

Uh, pretty obviously, Bob Avakian isn't advocating despotism, but talking about how we will prevent it from asserting itself EVEN UNDER SOCIALISM, EVEN WHEN THE REVOLUTONARY LEADERS AND PARTIES HAVE GREAT RESPECT AND AUTHORITY AMONG THE PEOPLE.

Historically there has been a great pull for revolutionaries to go from being liberators to exericizing their authority as "enlightened despotism" (which often sooner or later is just despotism.) The example of Cuba and the cult of the "bearded ones" running things comes to mind -- along with other examples (including Stalin and the Bolsheviks in their own way).

And Avakian is talking about HOW TO DO SOMETHING DIFFERENT. And also why that is so hard -- why people can't magically and overnight run society at all levels in their interests, why there is a complex process of even oppressed people learning how to rule, learning to grasp their interests in the complexities of running society.

He says "we are ruling, but who is the we."

The name of this article is "expanding the 'we'" -- meaning it is specifically about finding the ways continually under socialism to bring the masses of people more and more into the process of ruling the society (not just allow it to be ruled in their NAME, as it is in many places.)

And if read what I posted (from the RCP program on art and culture) you can see they are scoping out how to bring the masses of people into a position of ruling all the aspects of the superstructure (art, literature, culture etc.) and working with artists and writers in that great revolutioanry socialist transition.

Here is a small piece of Avakian's essay, so you can see for yourself what he is saying:

Doing Away with Despots
Speaking of the transition to communism and the seizure of power as the first great leap in that, to put this somewhat provocatively, it could be said that the goal is to move from where the vanguard is "an enlightened despot" to where there is no despot and no need or basis for one. Now that is, again, a deliberately provocative and even consciously outrageous way to say it. What do I mean by being "enlightened despots"? Obviously, I don't mean that literally--our outlook and methods can't be like those of Louis the 14th or Frederick the Great.***

Still, the fact remains that, when we come to power, there will remain great inequalities and social divisions, and notions of "pure democracy" would only serve to bring the bourgeoisie back to power. Think, for example, of what's said about the new state power in our Party's Draft Programme (see the appendices "Consolidating the New Proletarian Power, Developing Radically New Institutions" and "Proletarian Dictatorship, Democracy and the Rights of the People.") It makes the point that things proceed in waves, and that, in order for revolution to be possible there will have to be a whole, huge mass upsurge, but then it will not be possible to continuously maintain things at that high level.

Imagine what would be necessary to make revolution in a country like the U.S. Millions and tens of millions of people and all their revolutionary upheaval will be organized into an organized fighting force, and people will go through tremendous changes in their relations with each other and in their view of the world, in their ideological outlook. But then that's not going to stay on that same high level--it won't be possible to maintain things at that level all the time. Things proceed in waves and through spirals. When that initial great revolutionary wave recedes that has made it possible to seize and consolidate state power, we're not going to hand power back to the bourgeoisie. We're not going to say: "Oh well, right now there aren't as many masses as actively involved as there were at the high point of the mass revolutionary upsurge, so we should hand power back to the bourgeoisie, because after all we don't want to be a hierarchal dictatorship." No--that would be a monumental betrayal of the masses and all the ways in which they heroically struggled and sacrificed to make revolution and seize power.

You can see the rest for yourself here http://rwor.org/a/1201/bareach6.htm

Let's face it: we need to figure out how to make socialist and communist revolution without becoming tyrants ourselves. Avakian has spent the last years focusing on that question. You don't have to agree with him, but at least get the arguments right.

[redstar2000]

Originally posted by flyby
I posted some writings by the RCP on how artists and writers will work and contribute under socialism.

RS responded by posting the following, a sentence of Bob Avakian taken out of context.

It is not at all "taken out of context".

In fact the sentence says, succinctly, exactly what you go on to elaborate at length.

In Avakian's version of socialism, the vanguard party initially plays the role of enlightened despot.

It's clear both in that sentence and from your lengthy remarks that the RCP believes that its despotism will gradually relinquish power to the masses as the masses become "ready" to "rule themselves".

Your intentions are "benevolent".

Meanwhile, you cannot deny what I said about art and artists in a despotic society...unless you wish to admit to total confusion.

Nothing I said about art and artists in a class society is "new" or "innovative"...it's the common observation of recorded history.

He who pays the piper calls the tune.

I hope Chairman Bob's taste in music is similar to mine...but it's a crap-shoot.


RS writes as if Bob Avakian is advocating despotism, not talking about abolishing it.

He says, in effect, that "that's how it's going to be, like it or not". It's "historically necessary".

Perhaps, strictly speaking, that's not "advocacy" in a formal sense...but that's what the RCP intends to do!

If they are allowed to, of course.


Avakian is saying that when you come to power (after a revolution) you have a great deal of authority and support by sections of the people. You have won victory over real oppressors.

The phrase "come to power" means that the vanguard party is in control of a centralized state apparatus, with an army, police force, prisons, labor camps, etc.

It is not "accountable" to anyone but itself and can impose whatever it wishes...as Avakian himself concedes, it is a despotism.

It can be "enlightened" (Cuba?) or harsh beyond belief (North Korea?). It can even be both.

What is still hypothetical in the RCP's variant of Leninism-Maoism is the proposition that you actually would gradually but permanently relinquish your despotic power voluntarily.

I am not aware of any historical example of such a performance.


I think it is worth mentioning for clarity that this (rather crudely) turns Avakian's point inside out. And it is a method of distortion that doesn't help our discussion.

Avakian says, in effect, that first "we must be despots" and then "we must give up despotism".

That may be "crude", but it's not a distortion.

He says it plainly...as anyone can read.

:redstar2000:

The Redstar2000 Papers (http://www.redstar2000papers.fightcapitalism.net)
A site about communist ideas

[Snitza]

Ungh. They keep contradicting themselves, though..The Leninists, I mean. Lenin himself said that "if everyone is a beuracrat(sp), no one is a beauracrat."

Then they go off and make only a small ELITE the beauracracy.

Makes sense...=/