What class?

[Labor Shall Rule]

For people involved in the entertainment industry, what role would they play in the means of production? Do they belong to a certain class?

[Dooga Aetrus Blackrazor]

Bourgeoisie. They make a lot of money because of the work of others. Unless you fundamentally believe there artistic work (if you can call it that with some) is worth what they recieve for it.

[Dr. Rosenpenis]

While many are also fucked by the bourgeoisie.
Their work is very valuable in the production of TV, film, and music... but they do not own any means of production.

[afrikaNOW]

Originally posted by Dooga Aetrus [email protected] 16 2006, 04:32 AM
Bourgeoisie. They make a lot of money because of the work of others. Unless you fundamentally believe there artistic work (if you can call it that with some) is worth what they recieve for it.
That's not a correct analysis. We have to distinguish classes based on their relation to the means of production, not how much money they make. Working class is working class whether you get paid below minimum wage or get paid quite a hefty wage. Entertainers may have bourgeoisie tendencies but they do not own the means of production.

[RedCommieBear]

Originally posted by [email protected] 16 2006, 09:38 PM
That's not a correct analysis. We have to distinguish classes based on their relation to the means of production, not how much money they make. Working class is working class whether you get paid below minimum wage or get paid quite a hefty wage. Entertainers may have bourgeoisie tendencies but they do not own the means of production.
So... Do you think that Jessica Simpson is part of the proletariat? I agree that class membership is based on power in the means of production. However, maybe this is something that Marx didn't forsee, and "superstars" cannot really be described in Marxist class analysis. It's something worth thinking about, though.

[Labor Shall Rule]

Can we consider them "classless"?

[Janus]

Can we consider them "classless"?
No.


Bourgeoisie. They make a lot of money because of the work of others
Their pay is derived from the selling of their services. However, that doesn't classify them as bourgeois since they don't own the means of production. The best category for them would be petit bourgeois.

[apathy maybe]

I bet people are starting to get sick of me saying that, perhaps the Marxian analysis of class is a little bit outdated ...

Actors, musicians and sports people are obviously not bourgeois (at least their occupation is not). Yet few would accept them as proletariat, not just because they do not actually have a relation to the means of production. They do, however, sell their labour to others, it is just that the labour is not with the means of production.

Because they generally do not employ others (at least in their profession as entertainers), I do not think that they should be classified as petite bourgeois either.


You could perhaps invent a new class for entertainers, or other people who sell their labour but do not work with the means of production (clerks, secretaries, teachers etc.). But I feel that this is simply creating more complexity that is not needed, and even distracting from real relationships. The super stars discussed in this thread have more in common with CEOs then they do with people who work on stage or in the pub playing music.

A new class analysis is needed perhaps?

[Janus]

Because they generally do not employ others (at least in their profession as entertainers), I do not think that they should be classified as petite bourgeois either.
They don't have to employ others.

[OneBrickOneVoice]

bougie as it gets!

[RedDan]

Originally posted by [email protected] 17 2006, 05:04 AM

Because they generally do not employ others (at least in their profession as entertainers), I do not think that they should be classified as petite bourgeois either.
They don't have to employ others.
I agree, a small family owned company (like a bakery or a corner shop, for example) is petite bourgeois and they don't employ anyone as such. Although you are right that superstars do not own the means for production.

Or perhaps they could be deemed as part of the means of production. Anyone can be trained up to work a machine for making shoes but it takes a cirtain degree of natural tallent to be a really good actor/actress, so they are the only ones who can do it and therefore own a means of production.

Could this deduction be valid?

[apathy maybe]

OK, then, sure they do not have to employ others, but I would still say that they are not petite bourgeois.

In their position as entertainers, I would say that entertainers are not either bourgeois or petite bourgeois. In fact, they are being exploited by the media industry, that is the 'full value' of their work is not given to them (generally), but is siphoned off to publishers, record companies and movie makers.


Originally posted by RedDan
Or perhaps they could be deemed as part of the means of production. Anyone can be trained up to work a machine for making shoes but it takes a cirtain degree of natural tallent to be a really good actor/actress, so they are the only ones who can do it and therefore own a means of production.

Could this deduction be valid? I do not think so. Ideas and so on are not in anyway (except in the minds of certain capitalists) similar to physical goods. I can "steal" an idea, and you still have a copy, but I cannot steal your car and leave you with it.

Entertainers are not producing any physical goods, so I doubt that you could really say that they are "the means of production". Besides which, it doesn't actually take any talent, see Britney Spears for an example.

[Janus]

so they are the only ones who can do it and therefore own a means of production.
The Marxian class system is not based on salaries. Just because some stars may be paid more than certain bourgeois doesn't make them bourgeois. The means of production are generally physical objects which the bourgeois use to make a product or service which means that he or she has to employ others so as to operate them.

[Janus]

In fact, they are being exploited by the media industry, that is the 'full value' of their work is not given to them (generally), but is siphoned off to publishers, record companies and movie makers.
That may have been the case years ago but most musicians and actors now get the lion's share of their profit. They're not exploited by recording companies because they need to pay those companies to get promote their stuff, they generally aren't bound to working for them. Some of the stars these days even own their own recording labels or production studios thus becoming bourgeois in their own turn.

[Folk The System]

also take into account their value to society. while entertainers certainly offer SOME value to society, alot of entertainers are grossly overpaid (a football player making millions)

[Folk The System]

Originally posted by [email protected] 18 2006, 12:31 AM

That may have been the case years ago but most musicians and actors now get the lion's share of their profit. They're not exploited by recording companies because they need to pay those companies to get promote their stuff, they generally aren't bound to working for them. Some of the stars these days even own their own recording labels or production studios thus becoming bourgeois in their own turn.
this isnt exactly true. tons of naive musicians get screwed by record companies looking for the hot new thing. they usually sign a contract saying theyll do, say, 3 albums on that label. they do a first one and its mildly popular, but since it wasnt a giant hit the label insists on spending more time and money on the 2nd album, which is taken out of the bands share. a record company can also halt the release or production of the 2nd or 3rd album, but the band cant leave the label until their contract is fulfilled. so the band is effectively put out of commision.


of course, like you were saying, alot of superstars DO make a fat wad of cash.

[Janus]

tons of naive musicians get screwed by record companies looking for the hot new thing
That's definitely true but these musicians certainly aren't bound to the recording companies. Therefore, they aren't truly as exploited as workers.

[Folk The System]

Originally posted by [email protected] 18 2006, 01:09 AM

tons of naive musicians get screwed by record companies looking for the hot new thing
That's definitely true but these musicians certainly aren't bound to the recording companies. Therefore, they aren't truly as exploited as workers.
i agree, they aren't.

[black magick hustla]

Bourgeois.

It is irrelevant that many of them do not have "concrete means of production" like factories, or buisnesses--most of them have huge amount of stocks, such amounts would certainly classify to equivalent as "the means of production".

[Lamanov]

Practical significance of this question is almost non existant. They make about 0.001% of the general population, so their class status is really not a question for revolutionary theory.

The important question is not are they being exploited or not, but there's one more important factor - ideological: most of them exist on the frontside of "the spectacle" by representing a "spectacular model of life" which reinforces commodity fetishism. That is, of course, if they model their appearence in the form of commodity.

[Phugebrins]

Celebrities themselves, by being popular brands, have a monopoly on the means of production* - or at least, the sole control of their 'irreplaceable' (via fetishism) commodity sort of like a landowner.

*Yeah, they often don't produce much of objective value. But they can be considered production in the same way that owning a dodgy PR company is owning the means of production.

I know, though: it's a slightly shoehorned analysis (and I'm not particularly keen on a rigid adherence to particular Marxist class definitions).

[Lamanov]

Originally posted by [email protected] 19 2006, 01:39 PM
Yeah, they often don't produce much of objective value.

Actually, they do. They objectivate their labor in the form of commodity known as entertainment. Objectivation of labor in social use-value creates value per se. Social use-value of entertainment is not in question.

[Phugebrins]

I wasn't sure about that point, but either way, I was also concerned as to whether much of the celebrity cult industy counted as entertainment. But perhaps some people do find it entertaining.

[LuXe]

A bit hard to give them a certain class.

How about; Dipshits?

[Phugebrins]

"How about;"
Well, now you mention it, I wonder if we should look at this from another angle. For example, we have the 'reactionary' classes: the bourgeoisie and the toffs, the 'revolutionary' class, the working class, and for celebrities and a few others, the 'mindblowingly oblivious' class who wouldn't know a revolution if it hit them in their makeup-pickled face.

[bezdomni]

These sorts of people are mostly prevalent in imperialist countries. I'd say they are somewhere between petit-bourgeois, since most of the "superstars" have agents, people to do their hair, people to do their makeup, people to get them gigs or acting work (all of these are forms of labor) or just part of the labor aristocracy, since "superstardom" is mostly prevalent in imperialist countries.

It would likely depend on the "superstar".

I'd say most are petit-bourgeois though, since they depend on the labor of other people, yet own no property for themself.

[Esplin]

They do seem to possess certian qualities that are of the Bourgeoisie. They do have other people who assist them, (Agents, makeup artists for example,) But they do not have control of large amounts of control and means of control like the Bourgeoisie, yet sell their "Labor" (In the form of entertainment purposes)
to support themselves towards others, but do not seem to be a part of the Poletariat. This sort of thing is defiantly seen more in Western, Imperialist Countries. They seem to be both Bourgeoisie and Poletariat, but this is of course, ridiculous.

To me!

[apathy maybe]

Originally posted by Esplin
They seem to be both Bourgeoisie and Poletariat, but this is of course, ridiculous.I tend to disagree. It just shows that the Marxian analysis of class is flawed and/or limited.

To my mind the superstars can be put in the wealthy upper classes, the ruling or potential ruling classes as it were.

Other entertainers can then be placed in classes below that. Power is a better indicater for class then the relation to the means of production to my mind. (After all, do members of the band who can only get gigs at the local pub classify as bourgeois? If they live off their earnings but do not employ anyone, does that make the petite bourgeois?)

[Lamanov]

It's ridiculous to how this question is simple but you guys are banging your head against the wall about it:

Do "superstars" (one million dollars worth plus) invest their money in circulation? Yes, most of them do. That means that money they invest buys labour power? Yes. That means they, as investors, partners or full owners collect the surplus value in the form of profit? Of course. Do they hire people to work for them for wage? Yes. And that would mean that they are...


Originally posted by apathy maybe
Power is a better indicater for class then the relation to the means of production to my mind. (After all, do members of the band who can only get gigs at the local pub classify as bourgeois? If they live off their earnings but do not employ anyone, does that make the petite bourgeois?)

"Power is a better indicater for class then the relation to the means of production to my mind." Oh? So why don't you define "power" pray tell? Because if you even try to do so you will have to go back to its basis: the means/relations of production.

"If they live off their earnings but do not employ anyone, does that make the[m] petite bourgeois?" They still have to be hired by that real estate owner unless they want to play in the street.

[Angry Young Man]

Originally posted by [email protected] 16 2006, 09:38 PM
Entertainers may have bourgeoisie tendencies but they do not own the means of production.
Although for the most part you are right, some do, like the Beatles owned a recording studio. Hell, even Daron Malakian has a record label. Surely that makes him a gaffer over other artists, no?

[Angry Young Man]

Originally posted by [email protected] 17 2006, 09:55 AM
Anyone can be trained up to work a machine for making shoes but it takes a cirtain degree of natural tallent to be a really good actor/actress, so they are the only ones who can do it and therefore own a means of production.

Could this deduction be valid?
No. I'll tell you why:
Keanu Reeves (crap actor)
Sarah Michelle Gellar (crap actress)
Anyone played on daytime Radio 1 excepting MCR (crap "musicians")
Rik Mayall (generally crap "comedian")
Jade Goodey (crap...whatever the fuck she does).
I rest my case.
RSOY x x

[Lings]

there is a reason why we (at least those of us who are marxists) have to different terms for bourgeois and capitalist. The party leadership of all bourgeois partys, the leadership of yellow or otherwise reactionary unions and yeah, all the people who make millions of dollars per feature or record and who activly serve the owning class, are all part of the bourgeois. Even though they necesearly own any means of production, but when it comes to being bourgeois, its about who you serve, activly and willfully.

[Jazzratt]

Originally posted by [email protected] 21 2006, 11:29 AM
Jade Goodey (crap...whatever the fuck she does).

She's famous for being crap.

I'd definatley call them bourgeouise to the core, they don't do a hell of a lot in comparison to what they earn.