Supporting Art in a Communist society

[.eco-anarchist.]

Most people within the anarcho-communist, anarcho-syndicalist, stateless communism field of thought share a general belief that society should be governed by all, and that all workers should have equal power and pay.

So I'd like to know, what about those who don't do "work" in the traditional sense? Things like art, music and literature are things that make us human, and in a way make us free. So how far do you believe in supporting the arts? Should artists be treated as valueable as those who collect and distribute food and medicine? Should they be supported as communists would support those working to build roads or houses?

And if you don't believe so, how then can art be sustained in a stateless society? Just wondering your views, because I'm really not sure how many communists and anarchists think the same way I do, that artists are just as important as anyone else.

[Defender]

It all depends on how you define "work." Are homemakers workers? I certainly think so. And I certainly think artists, teachers, etc. are. Just because the specific kind of thing you are producing is less tangible than something like a house does not mean it is without value. Although, no one would be pigeonholed into one occupation either. You could hunt in the morning, fish in the afternoon, philosophize in the evening, etc.

[Die Neue Zeit]

I won't go three steps ahead when I should only go one step ahead.

In pre-socialist "proletocracy," there are more immediate needs than art, so I'd try to discourage art studies for the time being, and focus on the sciences and especially "business" management (for the sake of participation in the state management of the commanding heights, as well as for the sake of direct collective management in the smaller areas).

[Mind you, I was a good drawer of city buildings and roads, but I haven't drawn a single pic for around 10 years now.]

The only arts that should be encouraged are those relating to revolutionary propaganda. :)

[Raúl Duke]

So I'd like to know, what about those who don't do "work" in the traditional sense? Things like art, music and literature are things that make us human, and in a way make us free. So how far do you believe in supporting the arts? Should artists be treated as valueable as those who collect and distribute food and medicine? Should they be supported as communists would support those working to build roads or houses?

And if you don't believe so, how then can art be sustained in a stateless society? Just wondering your views, because I'm really not sure how many communists and anarchists think the same way I do, that artists are just as important as anyone else.

Some of these artists can also have other more "productive" jobs or volunteer for them...

You don't need to be solely an artist to be able to make art...

Although they shouldn't be considered a "problem".

[Schrödinger's Cat]

Originally posted by .eco-[email protected] 15, 2007 07:13 pm
Most people within the anarcho-communist, anarcho-syndicalist, stateless communism field of thought share a general belief that society should be governed by all, and that all workers should have equal power and pay.

So I'd like to know, what about those who don't do "work" in the traditional sense? Things like art, music and literature are things that make us human, and in a way make us free. So how far do you believe in supporting the arts? Should artists be treated as valueable as those who collect and distribute food and medicine? Should they be supported as communists would support those working to build roads or houses?

And if you don't believe so, how then can art be sustained in a stateless society? Just wondering your views, because I'm really not sure how many communists and anarchists think the same way I do, that artists are just as important as anyone else.
Of course. Art would flourish without intellectual property and money restraints. Musicians would love for a million people to download their songs, but under the current system to do so would mean cutting in to their revenue, equating to less money in their pocket. Indie film makers are the same way; instead of having four main studios who produce 70% of what we see, indie film makers could pick up the best equipment and then submit their finished product to the movie theaters, where the workers take one day to come together and vote on what they think is the best to show. I imagine the only difference here would be Hollywood, where the movie studios would be collectivized instead of destroyed for historical reasons.

I doubt most artisans would only work on their crafts, but they certainly deserve that right to if it's what they're wanting.

[Kwisatz Haderach]

Art is a public service, like education for example. How much education do we need, and how many resources should we invest in it? These questions should be answered by democratic vote, and the answers may differ from place to place.

Art should be treated in a similar way. The people in a socialist country (or communist commune, or whatever) will decide among themselves how many resources they wish to devote to art, and what kinds of art should be supported. Those resources will then be used to provide for the living expenses and materials needed by artists.

[CitizenErased]

The only arts that should be encouraged are those relating to revolutionary propaganda. :)

Even then, you don't really have to support them. Kind of like how after the Russian Revolution in 1917 forced many prominent composers like Rachmaninoff out of the country. Rachmaninoff's music was banned and he was declared an enemy of the state, but wouldn't you know it, they decided to start using some of his nationalistic pieces (I guess the Russian 5 got boring) for propaganda.



Of course. Art would flourish without intellectual property and money restraints.


Really? In ancient days it was an individual venture, but afterwards it was dominated by the Church. If it hadn't been for secular artists that viewed music as their own, we wouldn't have made it past polyphony (the church did not allow polyphony until later). Secular artists were the first ones to sign their work, making it their property. Sure, there weren't copyrights and such, but all that's done is add to our confusion today. In fact, we know basically shit about some of the greatest composers of that time like Josquin des Prez because many of the pieces that were supposedly written by him were probably by frauds, using his name to capitalize. The point is, music has treated as a collective venture, and it didn't work. It was saved by those that saw music as personal and proprietary. Mozart did a vast majority of his pieces for money. I can't imagine a world without Mozart or some of the other great composers that made music as a job in the market.

[Marsella]

The only arts that should be encouraged are those relating to revolutionary propaganda. smile.gif

Great...Harry Potter and the Half-Classed Proletarian... :(

[Bilan]

Art shouldn't be controlled by anyone, ever.
And I think "art" is a little bit vague, really. As, that does cover a shitload of things.
But I presume you mean canvas paintings, etc?
Well, essentially, for an artist, they would have the liberty to determine that (i.e. how much they do it, etc), but regardless, it is of a social necessity that they contribute in other socially useful ways of their choosing (of course).
Because, although art brings much joy to the lives of people (myself included), in a scale of social necessities, it doesn't rank as high (compared to things such as food, clothes and shelter, for example).

Hope that helps.
;)

[Comrade Nadezhda]

I would argue in this regard that there are definitely things which are more important than art and therefore the type of art that should be encouraged should be directed towards revolutionary practice (propaganda). There are definitely more important things than artwork, which is why I argue this. The best idea is to encourage art as revolutionary propaganda. There isn't anything bad about discouraging art, the point is to discourage activity which distracts from the revolutionary movement, since there are more important things which need to be focused on.

[Marsella]

I would argue in this regard that there are definitely things which are more important than art and therefore the type of art that should be encouraged should be directed towards revolutionary practice (propaganda). There are definitely more important things than artwork, which is why I argue this. The best idea is to encourage art as revolutionary propaganda. There isn't anything bad about discouraging art, the point is to discourage activity which distracts from the revolutionary movement, since there are more important things which need to be focused on.

I suppose I had better stop eating, sleeping and shitting because hell it distracts me from the revolutionary movement!

Honestly, these arguments are very poor and probably come from people who barely manage to draw stick figures.

How do you aim to force artists to paint propaganda, or at the very least 'encourage' them?

Art should be encouraged for its own sake, not for any propaganda purpose. If someone wants to paint 'revolutionary propaganda' so be it.

But quite frankly, I've seen enough pictures of strong, handsome male workers or paintings of Lenin...

[Comrade Nadezhda]

Originally posted by [email protected] 02, 2007 08:46 pm

I would argue in this regard that there are definitely things which are more important than art and therefore the type of art that should be encouraged should be directed towards revolutionary practice (propaganda). There are definitely more important things than artwork, which is why I argue this. The best idea is to encourage art as revolutionary propaganda. There isn't anything bad about discouraging art, the point is to discourage activity which distracts from the revolutionary movement, since there are more important things which need to be focused on.

I suppose I had better stop eating, sleeping and shitting because hell it distracts me from the revolutionary movement!

Honestly, these arguments are very poor and probably come from people who barely manage to draw stick figures.

How do you aim to force artists to paint propaganda, or at the very least 'encourage' them?

Art should be encouraged for its own sake, not for any propaganda purpose. If someone wants to paint 'revolutionary propaganda' so be it.

But quite frankly, I've seen enough pictures of strong, handsome male workers or paintings of Lenin...
I am actually a very good artist, but it has been years since I put effort in non-revolutionary artwork.

Your comments display complete ignorance, once again, Martov.

I just say that art should be directed towards revolutionary movement-- it is much more useful and of greater importance then and then it won't distract from the movement. I don't see anything wrong with it- it's for the future of the revolutionary movement.

You've seen enough of them? :huh: Would you rather see pictures depicting kings, royalty or the tsar? :blink: I'd rather see hundreds of paintings depicting Lenin (make it thousands! millions!) in place of that. I'd rather see art in regards to the working class than landscapes and large estates belonging to royal families and the such-- to me that is just useless art especially in regards to revolutionary movement and when there are things which are much more important to be done.

[Marsella]

I am actually a very good artist, but it has been years since I put effort in non-revolutionary artwork.

I used to paint houses.


Your comments display complete ignorance, once again, Martov.

I'm getting rather good at it aren't I? :lol:

Haven't quite reached your level though... :(


I just say that art should be directed towards revolutionary movement-- it is much more useful and of greater importance then and then it won't distract from the movement. I don't see anything wrong with it- it's for the future of the revolutionary movement.

How does art distract from the revolutionary movement?!

How does painting a picture move forward the revolutionary movement?!


You've seen enough of them? huh.gif Would you rather see pictures depicting kings, royalty or the tsar? blink.gif

Yes that is exactly what I would like to see, pictures of former autocrats, especially Lenin. <_<


I&#39;d rather see hundreds of paintings depicting Lenin (make it thousands&#33; millions&#33;) in place of that.

The only use they would have in the revolutionary movement would be as firewood.


I&#39;d rather see art in regards to the working class than landscapes and large estates belonging to royal families and the such-- to me that is just useless art especially in regards to revolutionary movement and when there are things which are much more important to be done.

Yes, those millions of pictures of Lenin don&#39;t paint themselves do they?

[CitizenErased]

Originally posted by Comrade [email protected] 03, 2007 02:00 am
You&#39;ve seen enough of them? :huh: Would you rather see pictures depicting kings, royalty or the tsar?
Are those our only choices? Are paintings the only type of art? You have quite a narrow focus for a "very good artist".

[Comrade Nadezhda]

Originally posted by [email protected] 02, 2007 09:09 pm

I am actually a very good artist, but it has been years since I put effort in non-revolutionary artwork.

I used to paint houses.


Your comments display complete ignorance, once again, Martov.

I&#39;m getting rather good at it aren&#39;t I? :lol:

Haven&#39;t quite reached your level though... :(


I just say that art should be directed towards revolutionary movement-- it is much more useful and of greater importance then and then it won&#39;t distract from the movement. I don&#39;t see anything wrong with it- it&#39;s for the future of the revolutionary movement.

How does art distract from the revolutionary movement?&#33;

How does painting a picture move forward the revolutionary movement?&#33;


You&#39;ve seen enough of them? huh.gif Would you rather see pictures depicting kings, royalty or the tsar? blink.gif

Yes that is exactly what I would like to see, pictures of former autocrats, especially Lenin. <_<


I&#39;d rather see hundreds of paintings depicting Lenin (make it thousands&#33; millions&#33;) in place of that.

The only use they would have in the revolutionary movement would be as firewood.


I&#39;d rather see art in regards to the working class than landscapes and large estates belonging to royal families and the such-- to me that is just useless art especially in regards to revolutionary movement and when there are things which are much more important to be done.

Yes, those millions of pictures of Lenin don&#39;t paint themselves do they?
I actually drew a sketch of Lenin recently-- it is quite good.

Martov, I hate to break it to you but implying that I am ignorant won&#39;t diminish your ignorance. :lol:

You will never succeed in burying Lenin, so why do you keep trying? Lenin is too important for his ideas to just simply be thrown away, as you are suggesting. Go back to your television broadcasting bourgeois bullshit-- it seems you are set in your rightist ways.

Firewood? WTF? :huh: You really are full of ignorance in regard to the purpose of this in the first place.

[Marsella]

I actually drew a sketch of Lenin recently-- it is quite good.

err...congratulations you have proven your level of devotion.


Martov, I hate to break it to you but implying that I am ignorant won&#39;t diminish your ignorance. laugh.gif

Funny, every time I ask questions of you or act critically (look the word up), you claim I am ignorant.

And I have asked you numerous times to help me out of my pathetic state&#33;


You will never succeed in burying Lenin, so why do you keep trying?

Sometimes shit doesn&#39;t go down...I don&#39;t want to leave it there for the next person.


Lenin is too important for his ideas to just simply be thrown away, as you are suggesting. Go back to your television broadcasting bourgeois bullshit-- it seems you are set in your rightist ways.

I wasn&#39;t talking about Leninism here, I was asking how art distracts from a revolutionary movement.

Because I know of lots of things that distract from a revolutionary movement, but I don&#39;t particularly feel like living in a den, re-reading The State and Revolution another hundred times...


Firewood? WTF? huh.gif You really are full of ignorance in regard to the purpose of this in the first place.

It (1) Serves as a symbolic move that the working class has no leaders and (2) Can be used to be kept warm or to cook food.

[Comrade Nadezhda]

err...congratulations you have proven your level of devotion.
You are completely missing the point.


Funny, every time I ask questions of you or act critically (look the word up), you claim I am ignorant.

And I have asked you numerous times to help me out of my pathetic state&#33;
I attempt to present valid arguments but you label them as "bullshit" and dismiss them just as you do in regards to the arguments other comrades present here. You simply say they are leninists and discuss their claims or quote Lenin out of context expecting no one to argue with you-- when you cannot sustain an argument when using such means in doing so-- therefore, I say you are ignorant simply because it is true. look it up in the dictionary if you don&#39;t understand what that means--- or maybe I&#39;ll just post it for you :rolleyes:

ignorant

1. Lacking education or knowledge.
2. Showing or arising from a lack of education or knowledge: an ignorant mistake.
3. Unaware or uninformed.

furthermore:

1. Without education or knowledge: illiterate, nescient, uneducated, uninstructed, unlearned, unschooled, untaught.
2. Exhibiting lack of education or knowledge: backward, benighted, primitive, unenlightened.
3. Not aware or informed: innocent, oblivious, unacquainted, unaware, unconscious, unenlightened, unfamiliar, uninformed, unknowing, unwitting.

if you don&#39;t like these definitions go look them up yourself. :lol:


Sometimes shit doesn&#39;t go down...I don&#39;t want to leave it there for the next person.
Shit? :huh: Are you comparing Lenin to shit? :blink: You disgust me-- you want to get rid of it all and just flush it down the fucking toilet?

I&#39;m not even going to reply to this-- I don&#39;t find it necessary to waste my time. :ph34r:


I wasn&#39;t talking about Leninism here, I was asking how art distracts from a revolutionary movement.

Because I know of lots of things that distract from a revolutionary movement, but I don&#39;t particularly feel like living in a den, re-reading The State and Revolution another hundred times...
You should read it over and over again-- ALL of Lenin&#39;s work-- until your ignorance diminishes.


It (1) Serves as a symbolic move that the working class has no leaders and (2) Can be used to be kept warm or to cook food.
Ok-- put aside my admiration for Lenin and the Bolshevik movement, because it doesn&#39;t piss me off because he is merely a source of my inspiration-- it pisses me off because you are making comments equivalent to reactionary bullshit and it disgusts me. It is quite low to compare paintings of Lenin to firewood. I don&#39;t care if you have any respect within you in regards to Lenin-- I could care less, but with Lenin came a lot of what is not to just simply be "thrown away" or "buried"-- it is valuable-- and what you are forgetting is the movement which came into being-- and it is quite important, I don&#39;t think that importance should simply be forgotten-- it shouldn&#39;t be. He advocated for the interests of the proletariat as a whole-- and if you fail to see that, fine- but he wasn&#39;t a "Stalin"-- or even comparable. What he brought to the surface- brought into being- was much more than which I can devote only one sentence to- Lenin recognized what measures were necessary in eliminating not only the exploitive forces, but the conditions which allowed for their existence-- if you fail to recognize the relevance in Lenin&#39;s arguments, fine-- but that proves your ignorance as you seem to not be able to say why besides your rightist bullshit you probably came to see as truth from watching bourgeois media.

Lenin was no idiot, he was no fool-- he recognized what must be done for there to be any movement towards communist society-- or even in regards to the elimination of the bourgeois state and the foundation of a worker&#39;s state. That isn&#39;t something to be forgotten.

[LSD]

So I&#39;d like to know, what about those who don&#39;t do "work" in the traditional sense?

They would have the same rights, freedoms, and privileges as everyone else.

Communism isn&#39;t "social capitalism", you don&#39;t have to meet some sort of "productivity quota" in order to be a part of society. Not only would artists enjoy the same rights as "productive" workers, but so would "bums" who spent their time doing nothing whatsoever&#33;

Obligating "productivity" is merely capitalism on a higher level, exchanging goods and services for labour. Not only does such an arrangement perpetuate capitalism&#39;s coercive exploitive nature, but it also misses the point entirely on just what&#39;s wrong the capitalist paradigm.

Material incentives are not nescessary; not in the form of wages from our bourgeois masters, and not in the form of "gifts" from some "workers&#39; state".

People have the right to eat because they have the right to eat. There are no further criterea.


The point is, music has treated as a collective venture, and it didn&#39;t work. It was saved by those that saw music as personal and proprietary.

And you don&#39;t think that technology has changed things somewhat?

You just have to look at the flourishing of internet distribution to see that non-commercialization no longer means fraud and anonnymity. In the 1600s it may well have been near impossible to determine who wrote a particulat piece of music, but clearly that is no longer the case.

That&#39;s the whole point of historical materialism. Social entities can be productive one century, and reactionary the next. Such is the case for capitalism and, more specifically, for the notion of "intellectual property".

In nearly all ventures, we are rapidly approaching the time where commercialization not only harms further development, but actually makes it virtually impossible.

That&#39;s just as true when it comes to artistic endeavours as it is with more "productive" undertakings.

There&#39;s a reason that more and more of the truly groundbreaking stuff is first appearing online. Capitalism&#39;s just less and less capable of handing it.

[LSD]

I just want to point out a fundamental flaw in your understanding here.

Many artists are indeed productive workers.

Which is why I put "productive" in quotation marks. I was refering to JohnnyDarko&#39;s use of the term.

My point was that "productivity" in any sense would have no bearing on status within a communist society.

[Organic Revolution]

Art shouldn&#39;t be looked at in terms of furthering ones theoretical importance, for the simple fact that art is fucking art. Art can be an inspiration to anyone, and even pictures painted that aren&#39;t of autocrats can be inspirations to revolution.

[Bilan]

Originally posted by Organic [email protected] 04, 2007 08:34 pm
Art shouldn&#39;t be looked at in terms of furthering ones theoretical importance, for the simple fact that art is fucking art. Art can be an inspiration to anyone, and even pictures painted that aren&#39;t of autocrats can be inspirations to revolution.
Quoted for truth (fuck abbreviations)

[Devrim]

Originally posted by .eco&#045;[email protected] 15, 2007 07:13 pm
So I&#39;d like to know, what about those who don&#39;t do "work" in the traditional sense? Things like art, music and literature are things that make us human, and in a way make us free. So how far do you believe in supporting the arts? Should artists be treated as valueable as those who collect and distribute food and medicine? Should they be supported as communists would support those working to build roads or houses?

Communism will be a society without an idea of jobs in the way we understand them today. Not only will every cook govern, but also after she has finished governing, she will then drive a bus, or create great sculpture, teach French, paint beautiful pictures, or just relax, and play music with her friends.

In a communist society there will not be a separate category of &#39;artist&#39;.

Devrim

[Comrade Nadezhda]

The point is, when communist society is attained art will be art and not some form of commodity-- not only in that regard, but it will be a form of creativity of which can be enjoyed-- there is time for the such, and "productivity" has no impact-- as creating art will have no relation to the production of capital-- since the such no longer exists.

therefore, forms of creativity can be fully enjoyed-- as the relations to productive forces in regards to the production of capital will no longer exist.

before communist society is attained, this is not yet possible.

[Schrödinger's Cat]

Individuals will decide what they think is valuable. There will be no money for people to "pay" with, so all prices will be completely subject to the person -- as art should be. If they&#39;re interested in having a hand-drawn piece of art created by someone else, the two parties can reach an agreement on what will be necessary for the exchange.

[CitizenErased]

Originally posted by devrimankara+November 04, 2007 10:55 am--> (devrimankara @ November 04, 2007 10:55 am)
.eco&#045;[email protected] 15, 2007 07:13 pm
So I&#39;d like to know, what about those who don&#39;t do "work" in the traditional sense? Things like art, music and literature are things that make us human, and in a way make us free. So how far do you believe in supporting the arts? Should artists be treated as valueable as those who collect and distribute food and medicine? Should they be supported as communists would support those working to build roads or houses?

Communism will be a society without an idea of jobs in the way we understand them today. Not only will every cook govern, but also after she has finished governing, she will then drive a bus, or create great sculpture, teach French, paint beautiful pictures, or just relax, and play music with her friends.

In a communist society there will not be a separate category of &#39;artist&#39;.

Devrim [/b]
Doesn&#39;t that make for less quality in the art as they are unable to put forth their full attention to it?

[IronColumn]

No one has taken the view that art, much like the proletarian anti-state, will simply wither away? The next mode of production will be one of realized art, so the term and practice of art will in fact be superseded with really lived situations. The art of living will replace our current conception of art.

[Devrim]

Originally posted by [email protected] 04, 2007 08:55 pm
No one has taken the view that art, much like the proletarian anti-state, will simply wither away? The next mode of production will be one of realized art, so the term and practice of art will in fact be superseded with really lived situations. The art of living will replace our current conception of art.
That sounds like something that you just pulled out of Debord, Iron Column.
Devrim

[Devrim]

Originally posted by [email protected] 04, 2007 08:55 pm
Doesn&#39;t that make for less quality in the art as they are unable to put forth their full attention to it?
What does quality mean? Art will completely change its nature in a society where it is not a commodity.
Devrim

[Comrade Nadezhda]

In communist society, the nature of art would definitely change-- as it would be based upon creativity and have its full potential as it is no longer a commodity. Art won&#39;t necessarily "wither away" but the way it exists now will-- because it will no longer be a commodity.

[blackstone]

No one has taken the view that art, much like the proletarian anti-state, will simply wither away? The next mode of production will be one of realized art, so the term and practice of art will in fact be superseded with really lived situations. The art of living will replace our current conception of art.



In communist society, the nature of art would definitely change-- as it would be based upon creativity and have its full potential as it is no longer a commodity. Art won&#39;t necessarily "wither away" but the way it exists now will-- because it will no longer be a commodity.
Now you guys are going way left field.

[Comrade Nadezhda]

Originally posted by [email protected] 05, 2007 07:53 am
Now you guys are going way left field.
Why?