Art in a Communist society

[Psy]

We know in feudalism artists either were starving artists or sold their talent to lords, nobles, ect. In capitalism artist either are starving artists or sell their talent to the bourgeoisie.

So how about in a communist society? Will art be nothing more then a hobby of workers? Will artist give their talent to society? How will art be distributed? How will society decided that a piece of film artwork deserves airtime over another piece of film artwork?

[victim77]

I believe that art is needed and it should be accessable by all people. In a communist society the artist would work to improve the lives of all.

[Psy]

I believe that art is needed and it should be accessable by all people. In a communist society the artist would work to improve the lives of all.

But large scale art projects requires access to the means of production. If you want to produce a feature film you are going to require access to a film studio and the labor power within.

[Schrödinger's Cat]

The workers at a particular studio would pick artists based on qualifications. Independent directors would have to prove themselves to move up.

Drawing, writing, filming, acting, and other forms of art are all drives that humans feel compelled to act on. There would be no copyrights (and no need to hide your work); all art would be distributed freely.

[Red_or_Dead]

The workers at a particular studio would pick artists based on qualifications. Independent directors would have to prove themselves to move up.


Wouldnt the workers at a particular studio be artists?

[Red October]

Wouldnt the workers at a particular studio be artists?

Yes, and they would choose what art to make.

[Psy]

Wouldnt the workers at a particular studio be artists?
You would be surprised the army of non-artist workers in a large film studio. Mostly people that do nothing but setup sets and tear them down when they need to setup the next set. Then you have technicians that maintain the equipment and operate equipment and you have drivers to transport equipment and set parts to where they need to be.


The large studio lots are basically small cities onto themselves and are so vast it and employ so many workers it would be impossible to not have to include them in production planning.

[Red_or_Dead]

You would be surprised the army of non-artist workers in a large film studio. Mostly people that do nothing but setup sets and tear them down when they need to setup the next set. Then you have technicians that maintain the equipment and operate equipment and you have drivers to transport equipment and set parts to where they need to be.


The large studio lots are basically small cities onto themselves and are so vast it and employ so many workers it would be impossible to not have to include them in production planning.

Yes, but thats just a part of it. Studios that produce stuff like jumbo posters, graphic design art, industrial design, photograhpy, paintings... Usualy only employ artists, and in many cases they are only used by a single artist.

And while I agree that workers in the case that you described should be included, what say should they have on what the final product is?


Yes, and they would choose what art to make.

And who would consume that art? That is if we are speaking of art as a consumer product. Anyway, what I mean is, that there has to be a relationship between the consumer and the producer. If the art studios would just make what would come into their minds, disregarding people who consume that art, why should they consume it?

[Psy]

Yes, but thats just a part of it. Studios that produce stuff like jumbo posters, graphic design art, industrial design, photograhpy, paintings... Usualy only employ artists, and in many cases they are only used by a single artist.

And while I agree that workers in the case that you described should be included, what say should they have on what the final product is?

I don't know, the problem is having artistic production as consolidated as capitalism has made it doesn't seem exactly useful to communism with the bulk of Earth's mean of film production being in the LA area in massive studio lots. Do we breakup the major LA studios up, sending their equipment around the world? Should the workers at the major LA studios have a say on the matter?

[Red_or_Dead]

I don't know, the problem is having artistic production as consolidated as capitalism has made it doesn't seem exactly useful to communism with the bulk of Earth's mean of film production being the LA area in massive studio lots. Do we breakup the major LA studios up, sending their equipment around the world? Should the workers at the major LA studios have a say on the matter?

First of all that is not true. LA studios may be the most commercialy succesfull in the world, but they are by no means the biggest (ever heard of Bollywood, India?), nor do they represent the bulk of Earths film production.

But that really has nothing to do with my statement in the previous post.

What I am asking is: how can workers who are not artists themselves be included in deciding on the content of the artistic product (if that is indeed what you were proposing)?

[Psy]

First of all that is not true. LA studios may be the most commercialy succesfull in the world, but they are by no means the biggest (ever heard of Bollywood, India?), nor do they represent the bulk of Earths film production.

They are the largest concentration of equipment for film production.




But that really has nothing to do with my statement in the previous post.

What I am asking is: how can workers who are not artists themselves be included in deciding on the content of the artistic product (if that is indeed what you were proposing)?
Like I said, I don't know. The problem is they are so centralized it become a issue, it is hard to simply brush them off as petite-production and let the artists do their own thing. Yes there are many smaller studios but if the large LA studios are not broken up they would probably still dominate through having far more resources at their disposal.

Workers being included in deciding content could be a answer to democratizing the process for larger studios but I don't really know how it could work, it still wouldn't fix the problem of regional art production lacking (capitalist got to the point that even "local" DJs on the radio are not local).

[che12]

I think that all art forms would have to be done on peoples own time and that finished products would be copied and distributed among galleries and cinemas and after 6months they would go into storage. Art is feelings and emotions no one person should own that it should be given to the people as about films if we made a soviet system where a representative of each part of the production workers made decisions.

[gla22]

I think that all art forms would have to be done on peoples own time and that finished products would be copied and distributed among galleries and cinemas and after 6months they would go into storage. Art is feelings and emotions no one person should own that it should be given to the people as about films if we made a soviet system where a representative of each part of the production workers made decisions.

Yeah i see art not as an industry but as a hobby. Done in free time.

[Dimentio]

So you would want the people to decide what the content of my books should be? ;)

[Psy]

Yeah i see art not as an industry but as a hobby. Done in free time.

The problem is the large scale artist production, even if the major studio were broken up and every region had a decently sized studio, how does something that seen as a hobby get organized into large projects.

Lets say you have this idea for a short film and walk into the local TV studio (that exist again because communism decentralized production), now what? If it a hobby done in free time who is manning the TV studio? Does it mostly sit empty and people have to round up workers for each project? What about major film projects like Sergei Eisenstein's Ivan the Terrible?

It gets far more complicated if the major studios are not broken up as now you have massive studios that can produce multiple major film projects at the same time in a concentrated area.

[Bad Grrrl Agro]

To some extent I believe that certain things should vary based on the type of art. In something that is a solitary form of art, the artist should have complete say over all aspects of the art. In other words nobody should tell a painter what to paint, nor a poet what to write. Film requires many more parties to be involved all of those people should have a say on how it works.

Not all art can be just a hobby done on spare time. Music for example, a musician has to practice extensively. If a musician has to practice, write songs, record, have a full-time "regular job" and sleep, it just wouldn't work very easily. Many of the musicians of great potential have never been able to perfect their skills and turn the potential into kinetic (as a figure of speech) due to lack of practice time. I believe that when a society gets so bland as to not put enough emphasis on the arts it loses it's soul. I believe artists will be the pioneers that shape the culture of a revolutionary society.

[che12]

I can see where you are coming from and i agree that if we loose things such as music our society would become a machine that worked well but that was it. perhaps if Musicians only worked half shifts but would have to go to a bureau of some sorts to get the ok.

[Malakangga]

art=revolution=communism

[Dimentio]

art=revolution=communism

Pink elephant=Toast= I <3 NY

[Psy]

I can see where you are coming from and i agree that if we loose things such as music our society would become a machine that worked well but that was it. perhaps if Musicians only worked half shifts but would have to go to a bureau of some sorts to get the ok.

Capitalism has not centralized music production like it did film production. Also music production requires far less equipment, it wouldn't be hard to have at least one music studio in every town and streaming audio over the Internet means musicians can easily find a audience for their work. I don't see the need to have any oversight for music as you could actually just label them petite-production and let music studios manage themselves and simply build more if they can't handle demand.

[Psy]

I've been think about this again and the question is how do we decide what large artistic projects get produced and by what large scale studio (and by what artists). Small studios would mostly be doing small projects with short production cycles meaning they would be less of a issue as each project they take on won't be taking up that much resources per project and with the Internet artists can already have a audience before approaching small studio's (to where they would be getting more resources). The question becomes about managing the production of large studio's, most artist would rather their project be done at a large studio with a long production cycle and large production values so the question becomes what artists would have access to the large studio's, of course the logical solution is to have artist built up their career so by the time they start getting involved in large studio projects they have a lot of smaller works under their belt yet then there is the question of would they given free reign over the studio or would non-artists have some say over their projects (since these artists would be consuming a significant chunk of non-artistic labor power and tying up a significant chunk of the means of production).

[Surreal Deal]

It would all depend on the scenario it would seem. Forgive me but this is my first post. I understand this is a leftist only site but I have a tendancy to be the devils advocate and open minded. So the question I see is this. Is this question based on total global marxism/comm or are you thinking shorter term? Because the next question would be is this during global peace or war time? Civil or other? In my opinion, the best art is nurtured most often by oppression, pain, loss, social unrest and social aspirations. What good is good without evil sort of thing. And I am just trying to picture a utopean marxist society. One that allows people to do what they are best at or what they want to do as they want to do it. I understand that in a capitalist society that even the bougeousie have problems. What to wear? Do the Jones' have a nicer car now? Since I have all this free time, should I not drink during it? What I am wondering is this. What kind of revolutionary or awe inspiring art will be created by a well working global machine that has no aspirations or need for change or revolution? Once these questions are answered I believe how to do it would be much easier.

A sincere question.

[ckaihatsu]

We know in feudalism artists either were starving artists or sold their talent to lords, nobles, ect. In capitalism artist either are starving artists or sell their talent to the bourgeoisie.

So how about in a communist society? Will art be nothing more then a hobby of workers? Will artist give their talent to society? How will art be distributed? How will society decided that a piece of film artwork deserves airtime over another piece of film artwork?


---





[L]et the proceeds from a global communist economy fund [an entrepreneurial project] to whatever extent is needed. The supply of * value * would be entirely top-down -- as opposed to the situation under capitalism, where labor value is leeched *upwards*, unendingly. The proceeds from any artistic endeavor / small-scale "shop" would be made freely available to the public. Bottom-up taxes or fees would be unnecessary because there wouldn't be currency / commodities at all, and automation would mean that industrial workers would be doing minimal work anyway to supply all of the personal, artistic endeavors (including small-scale "shops") with all needed supplies.

[ckaihatsu]

I've been think about this again and the question is how do we decide what large artistic projects get produced and by what large scale studio (and by what artists).


This is always the crux of the matter for *any* economic system -- what cultural heights can it enable (or enclose, to put it another way), given that, often, *quantity* of funding does lead to a *quality* of production.

Consider professional sports or large-budget movie productions. Both receive tremendous societal acceptance and major budgets -- as revolutionaries we simply ask, "Why not for other endeavors as well? Don't we have the material capacity to enable much more than just sports and movies?"

It's currently the bourgeois class, through the means of advertising budgets, etc., that lend socio-economic-political support to the mainstream types of cultural production like sports and movies.

Just as with any other kind of production we would expect to have the means of production for mass cultural / artistic projects fully in the public domain, to be as accessible for large-scale projects as reserving a book at the library is today.

If there arises any dispute or question as to scheduling or priority of one project versus another, it would necessarily be a political issue, but *not* a financing-economic one. I'd imagine that the overall budget for cultural projects would have already been decided at higher (more macro) political levels, and with the full abundance that a communist mode of production would enable.

I came up with this all-encompassing diagram the other day to illustrate the components of a communist economy. It's just one page and I think it pertains to this topic. Please feel free to take a look, and I welcome comments.


communist economy diagram

http://tinyurl.com/bom9ca


Chris





--


--
___

RevLeft.com -- Home of the Revolutionary Left
www.revleft.com/vb/member.php?u=16162

Photoillustrations, Political Diagrams by Chris Kaihatsu
community.webshots.com/user/ckaihatsu/

3D Design Communications - Let Your Design Do Your Footwork
ckaihatsu.elance.com

MySpace:
myspace.com/ckaihatsu

CouchSurfing:
tinyurl.com/yoh74u


-- Of all the Marxists in a roomful of people, I'm the Wilde-ist. --

[Psy]

This is always the crux of the matter for *any* economic system -- what cultural heights can it enable (or enclose, to put it another way), given that, often, *quantity* of funding does lead to a *quality* of production.

Consider professional sports or large-budget movie productions. Both receive tremendous societal acceptance and major budgets -- as revolutionaries we simply ask, "Why not for other endeavors as well? Don't we have the material capacity to enable much more than just sports and movies?"

It's currently the bourgeois class, through the means of advertising budgets, etc., that lend socio-economic-political support to the mainstream types of cultural production like sports and movies.

Just as with any other kind of production we would expect to have the means of production for mass cultural / artistic projects fully in the public domain, to be as accessible for large-scale projects as reserving a book at the library is today.

If there arises any dispute or question as to scheduling or priority of one project versus another, it would necessarily be a political issue, but *not* a financing-economic one. I'd imagine that the overall budget for cultural projects would have already been decided at higher (more macro) political levels, and with the full abundance that a communist mode of production would enable.

I came up with this all-encompassing diagram the other day to illustrate the components of a communist economy. It's just one page and I think it pertains to this topic. Please feel free to take a look, and I welcome comments.


communist economy diagram

http://tinyurl.com/bom9ca


Chris





--


--
___

RevLeft.com -- Home of the Revolutionary Left
www.revleft.com/vb/member.php?u=16162 (http://www.revleft.com/vb/member.php?u=16162)

Photoillustrations, Political Diagrams by Chris Kaihatsu
community.webshots.com/user/ckaihatsu/

3D Design Communications - Let Your Design Do Your Footwork
ckaihatsu.elance.com

MySpace:
myspace.com/ckaihatsu

CouchSurfing:
tinyurl.com/yoh74u


-- Of all the Marxists in a roomful of people, I'm the Wilde-ist. --


Allowing just anyone to use large scale studio's is like just like anyone use large scale factories, their scale makes it more logical for them to be under production plans, meaning under a communist society the major studio's would still be very large means of production for TV and film that is highely centralized not because we wanted them to be but because we would inherit the means of production from capitalists. Sure there are a bunch of smaller studios and it would be easy to built more small studio's under communism espcially with the advances in audio and video technology so it is not a question of artists being totally denied access to studio's it a question of who's gets access to the larger studio's.

[marxist579]

Art is necessary for any society in some form, I believe. It encourages creativity and expands your mind. I don't know if you heard, but in Canada, and the US, they are considering cutting funding for all forms of art for now, to help optimize the money that the state will spend on patching up the economy. The medical and art communities say that this is a bad thing, because some studies that have been done show that when there is no art or art related things in culture, depression rates go up.

All I can see in his first week of his presidency is that this "socialist" Obama is nothing more than a capitalist pawn, and his $825 billion stimulus package will only go to more corporations and big businesses that he vowed to fight against in his campaign.

[Surreal Deal]

"All I can see in his first week of his presidency is that this "socialist" Obama is nothing more than a capitalist pawn, and his $825 billion stimulus package will only go to more corporations and big businesses that he vowed to fight against in his campaign."

How would you suggest re-stimulating the economy? I thought that the last stimulus check was a great idea. Maybe only 20% used to pay down their debt. The other 80% threw it back into the economy with a little more. Japan in the late 80's had a depression that was staggering. The reason why it lasted so long was because no one spent money. They hoarded it becase they were afraid. Lending dried up as well. Money is the oil of the machine. I am not saying that the machine couldn't use a replacement or modifications but it's really hard to stop a machine this big.

[Reclaimed Dasein]

Art is necessary for any society in some form, I believe. It encourages creativity and expands your mind. I don't know if you heard, but in Canada, and the US, they are considering cutting funding for all forms of art for now, to help optimize the money that the state will spend on patching up the economy. The medical and art communities say that this is a bad thing, because some studies that have been done show that when there is no art or art related things in culture, depression rates go up.

All I can see in his first week of his presidency is that this "socialist" Obama is nothing more than a capitalist pawn, and his $825 billion stimulus package will only go to more corporations and big businesses that he vowed to fight against in his campaign.
I honestly think art is worthless and a symptom of a sick society. That being said, I think if people want to do art they should be able to in the most efficient and open fashion. I agree that many large studio productions would need to be centralized after a fashion, but we could also just "loan out" the various needs stuff with people signing up for use. Distribution could be done via the internet and priority could be determine democratically from art consumers.

It doesn't seem to terribly problematic to me, especially if high quality digital arts tools were made widely available.

[ckaihatsu]

How would you suggest re-stimulating the economy? I thought that the last stimulus check was a great idea.


There *is* no "re-stimulating the economy" -- that's why we're revolutionary leftists. We *know* that the capitalist system itself -- not just the exorbitant bonuses paid to executives -- is the problem, and that the black hole that's opened up on major banking balance sheets *can't* just be "patched up" and the economy jump-started. Besides, we're *anti*-capitalists, anyway...!

As the returns from cutting-edge technology diminish as its adoption becomes commonplace, businesses inevitably run up against the unavoidable costs of * actual labor * -- people. This cost of wages cuts deeply into profit margins and spurs companies, and now banks, to go running to the taxpayer in a pathetic attempt to "re-stimulate the economy".

Note that the U.S. federal deficit is at a 53-year high of 10.6 trillion dollars. For any other, smaller, country this debt overhang alone would cause massive capital flight, leading to skyrocketing interest rates and hyperinflation as the country's currency turns into little more than Monopoly money.

But since the U.S. is such a major player, and has the "supercop to the world" protection racket thing going, its economy has been kept afloat by cheap, super-exploited Chinese labor (as well as others).



[B]y the yardstick of capitalist accumulation -- which we as members of the proletariat have no personal interest in -- the U.S. and China are now joined at the hip because China depends on consumer purchases from the U.S. market, backed by ballooning U.S. debt, while the U.S. depends on cheap, hyper-exploited labor in China to make those consumer products.

In the press these two act like petulant children -- I'm reminded of the movie Stepbrothers which illustrates the relationship perfectly (and is a very funny comedy if you like stupid-style humor).

Forget the superpowers of the 20th century -- we need a new term, like megapower, to describe the symbiotic double-power that comprises the U.S.-China economy.

[ckaihatsu]

I honestly think art is worthless and a symptom of a sick society.


This strikes me as a curious statement. Don't you think that artistic expression of one kind or another will always be inevitable as people come to terms with the (mental) conceptions they've made of the world around them? Really we could categorize *all* literature and science as being artistic expressions of a type -- some are just more utilitarian than others.

Or maybe you're talking about a professional art market that balloons in tandem with the rise of luxury goods production? This happens in periods like the current one where growth has slowed down and the bourgeoisie turns to more and more exotic forms of commodities as "safe havens" for accumulated "value".



That being said, I think if people want to do art they should be able to in the most efficient and open fashion.


Wouldn't a more public-sector-services kind of economic system, like global communism, be more able to fulfill this kind of need? There may be more people in a middle-range area of art production whose work would benefit from increased funding to subsidize their raw resources.



I agree that many large studio productions would need to be centralized after a fashion, but we could also just "loan out" the various needs stuff with people signing up for use.


Aren't these synonymous? To loan out stuff you'd need some kind of administration, however light, and to implement an administration is to centralize it. And, then, for greater efficiencies over a relatively small area, like, say, Los Angeles, it would be good to centralize from among the various studio-based administrations -- this way more stuff could be swapped from studio to studio.



Distribution could be done via the internet and priority could be determine democratically from art consumers.

It doesn't seem to terribly problematic to me, especially if high quality digital arts tools were made widely available.


Yeah, it's already here, and it's called torrents -- do a web search for the term and you'll find out a lot. I like watching my TV shows this way instead of the conventional, over-the-air method.

Please keep in mind that not all art can (or should) be made digitally, or distributed digitally. I think a post-capitalist society would enable much more diverse art production, and more opportunities for the public to view / interact with it as well.

[Psy]

The problem with large studios is they are on a similar scale to large factories, to just have anyone borrow their resources is like to try and have anyone just be able to borrow the resources of a large factory, in both cases you need production plans due to the scale of the means of production.

As for distribution due to the production values that come out of the large studio's I think theaters would still used to release new films to show the film how it was meant it to be seen instead of on the small screen of computer monitors. TV might also exist simply to have a more centralized audience for new content out of TV studio's (face it most artist rather have their work appear on TV then on YouTube).

[Psy]

Just as with any other kind of production we would expect to have the means of production for mass cultural / artistic projects fully in the public domain, to be as accessible for large-scale projects as reserving a book at the library is today.

If there arises any dispute or question as to scheduling or priority of one project versus another, it would necessarily be a political issue, but *not* a financing-economic one. I'd imagine that the overall budget for cultural projects would have already been decided at higher (more macro) political levels, and with the full abundance that a communist mode of production would enable.

I came up with this all-encompassing diagram the other day to illustrate the components of a communist economy. It's just one page and I think it pertains to this topic. Please feel free to take a look, and I welcome comments.


communist economy diagram

http://tinyurl.com/bom9ca



I've been thinking of this yet again. The major issue with art is there is no connection to designing art and designing any other products. When designing other products you can see what your customers want yet for good art you can't do this else the art would be too predictable which we find in bourgeoisie art (we even have a term for this cliché) as capitalists tend to want their arts to produce art that has been done before.

For a socialist society it won't know the value of the art is currently producing till it finishes its production cycle and that art is being consumed by society, meaning a socialist society would have to trust its artist will make good art while allowing young artist to get more and more exposure and getting allocated more resources for their projects.

[Bilan]

Art is dead. you're just a necrophiliac. ;)

[Jimmie Higgins]

I think if there is a stable worker's society, we will be up to our asses in all kinds of art.

With more free time for workers to go to school and to learn new skills (like playing music or film making) and peruse their own interests there will probably be more causal "folk art" or hobbyist art as well as larger art projects requiring more time and resources.

Past revolutionary situations have shown the effect of revolutionary times on art. In France in the 20s, major filmmakers abandoned their old style of making films for experiments in communal film making where everyone was involved in decision making. In many ways this collaborative type of art is more genuine and "natural" for big projects than the capitalist business model. If you were making a movie that required a lot of resources and attention to detail, why would you want a bunch of technicians working on it who care for this film about as much as they care about the "Jonas Brother" movie they worked on 2 months ago?

[Hoxhaist]

Socialist states had some of the most beautiful murals of workers in factories, farmers in fields, leaders meeting the people, etc... This is all called Socialist Realism, they were beautiful and unique pieces of art that were meant to inspire the best of the people of the socialist nations

[LOLseph Stalin]

I may not like DPRK, but I like their artwork/propaganda.

[Jimmie Higgins]

Unique? That's not how I would describe Socialist Realism. I hope the art produced in a worker society is more dynamic and interesting than what I've seen from the Socialist Realist time.

[Hoxhaist]

unique in the sense of being completely different from Western art at the time and peculiar to Socialist states

[ckaihatsu]

I've been thinking of this yet again. The major issue with art is there is no connection to designing art and designing any other products.


Right -- here we're dealing with the cutting-edge (or "bleeding-edge") of progress in society. Even the most educated, enlightened, and motivated artist or engineer may not be able to discern the importance and societal effect of his / her work at the time that it's being created.





When designing other products you can see what your customers want yet for good art you can't do this else the art would be too predictable which we find in bourgeoisie art (we even have a term for this cliché) as capitalists tend to want their arts to produce art that has been done before.





[A]s art springs from personality, so it is only to personality that it can be revealed, and from the meeting of the two comes right interpretative criticism.

[...]

[The artist] will be always showing us the work of art in some new relation to our age. He will always be reminding us that great works of art are living things--are, in fact, the only things that live. So much, indeed, will he feel this, that I am certain that, as civilisation progresses and we become more highly organised, the elect spirits of each age, the critical and cultured spirits, will grow less and less interested in actual life, and WILL SEEK TO GAIN THEIR IMPRESSIONS ALMOST ENTIRELY FROM WHAT ART HAS TOUCHED. For life is terribly deficient in form. Its catastrophes happen in the wrong way and to the wrong people. There is a grotesque horror about its comedies, and its tragedies seem to culminate in farce. One is always wounded when one approaches it. Things last either too long, or not long enough.

http://www.gutenberg.org/dirs/etext97/ntntn10.txt





For a socialist society it won't know the value of the art is currently producing till it finishes its production cycle and that art is being consumed by society, meaning a socialist society would have to trust its artist will make good art while allowing young artist to get more and more exposure and getting allocated more resources for their projects.


If we define the cutting-edge of progress to be about the mass political decision-making around artistic and engineering goals -- (because better material support translates into better production values) -- then this situation you're describing would be at the forefront of a communist politics. In other words deciding on what should be funded as "art" would be done on a case-by-case basis, with as much relevant, enlightened political opinion involved as possible.

It's not as simple as saying, "Let's trust *all* self-proclaimed artists and engineers to produce good work and let's fund them to the hilt."

Nor is it as simple as saying, "Let's *not trust* any creative people -- we'll just stick with the forms that we know and that have worked before." Obviously this second position most resembles the conservatism and fearfulness that we know to expect from the propertied class under capitalism.

So the question is how we can define as precise a set of guidelines, or policy, around this, and any similar issues, while still allowing flexibility for sound case-by-case decision-making. Society has an interest in not being too lenient, for fear of falling victim to the military-industrial complex, financiers, ballooning art commodity prices, or bad artists (or whatever)....





The public imagine that, because they are interested in their immediate surroundings, Art should be interested in them also, and should take them as her subject-matter. But the mere fact that they are interested in these things makes them unsuitable subjects for Art. The only beautiful things, as somebody once said, are the things that do not concern us. As long as a thing is useful or necessary to us, or affects us in any way, either for pain or for pleasure, or appeals strongly to our sympathies, or is a vital part of the environment in which we live, it is outside the proper sphere of art. To art's subject-matter we should be more or less indifferent. We should, at any rate, have no preferences, no prejudices, no partisan feeling of any kind.

http://www.gutenberg.org/dirs/etext97/ntntn10.txt

[Hoxhaist]

a criticism often levelled at the former socialist states was the dreary design of their goods and the lack of imagination or color in packaging, art would have a purpose in the next socialist experiment in fixing that past mistake

[Psy]

Socialist states had some of the most beautiful murals of workers in factories, farmers in fields, leaders meeting the people, etc... This is all called Socialist Realism, they were beautiful and unique pieces of art that were meant to inspire the best of the people of the socialist nations

That became a cliché yet the USSR eventually diversified its art styles greatly.

[Hoxhaist]

That became a cliché yet the USSR eventually diversified its art styles greatly.
true, the USSR also distanced itself from this art stlye because it was associated with Stalin, but I still love seeing the old murals of the USSR :hammersickle:

[ckaihatsu]

As for distribution due to the production values that come out of the large studio's I think theaters would still used to release new films to show the film how it was meant it to be seen instead of on the small screen of computer monitors. TV might also exist simply to have a more centralized audience for new content out of TV studio's (face it most artist rather have their work appear on TV then on YouTube).


Theaters should be as accessible as libraries -- after all, they're just large buildings with big screens and movie projectors....

All films, as artwork, should be in the public domain -- irrespective of the wishes of the artist -- and all film productions should be publicly funded.

Distribution is now obviously taking place over the Internet, even for better-resolution videos -- have you seen dailymotion.com as well as YouTube -- ? Once the *content medium* quality is sufficient the screening medium (LCD screens, movie theaters) should be freely accessible to the public.

[Jimmie Higgins]

Theaters should be as accessible as libraries -- after all, they're just large buildings with big screens and movie projectors....

All films, as artwork, should be in the public domain -- irrespective of the wishes of the artist -- and all film productions should be publicly funded.

Distribution is now obviously taking place over the Internet, even for better-resolution videos -- have you seen dailymotion.com as well as YouTube -- ? Once the *content medium* quality is sufficient the screening medium (LCD screens, movie theaters) should be freely accessible to the public.

Yes just as worker-run factories making toilet brushes would use new technology to make production and distribution easier and more rational from a worker/production/use standpoint, new technologies for film, lit, and music would make art more accessible and easy to distribute.

[Psy]

If we define the cutting-edge of progress to be about the mass political decision-making around artistic and engineering goals -- (because better material support translates into better production values) -- then this situation you're describing would be at the forefront of a communist politics. In other words deciding on what should be funded as "art" would be done on a case-by-case basis, with as much relevant, enlightened political opinion involved as possible.

It's not as simple as saying, "Let's trust *all* self-proclaimed artists and engineers to produce good work and let's fund them to the hilt."

Nor is it as simple as saying, "Let's *not trust* any creative people -- we'll just stick with the forms that we know and that have worked before." Obviously this second position most resembles the conservatism and fearfulness that we know to expect from the propertied class under capitalism.

So the question is how we can define as precise a set of guidelines, or policy, around this, and any similar issues, while still allowing flexibility for sound case-by-case decision-making. Society has an interest in not being too lenient, for fear of falling victim to the military-industrial complex, financiers, ballooning art commodity prices, or bad artists (or whatever)....
Yet it would boil down to artists, we reached the point were we could easily provide all artists enough resources to build up a portfolio of small scale workers either from their homes, in small local studios or other free public space (that would comprise most of the space) for example putting on plays and concerts in parks. Yet when it comes to large studios putting out larger works the more original the work the harder it is to judge early on in production as the artist probably doesn't know for sure if their ideas would work as they are trying something that hasn't been done before especially if they are experimenting in the process itself. Before film makers tried scratching film on purpose to simulate age they didn't know if it would work same with randomly drawing lines to get the same effect and the same with using black construction paper for the background layer and poking pin holes into it to get light effects on the animation cells above. Since not even the arts knows exactly what the end result would be your mostly be deciding the resource funding of artists based on their portfolio and the basic idea they are starting off with that might change during the production stage as the artists might think up a better idea for what they already got and re-work the entire idea into something else.

[Psy]

Theaters should be as accessible as libraries -- after all, they're just large buildings with big screens and movie projectors....

All films, as artwork, should be in the public domain -- irrespective of the wishes of the artist -- and all film productions should be publicly funded.

Distribution is now obviously taking place over the Internet, even for better-resolution videos -- have you seen dailymotion.com as well as YouTube -- ? Once the *content medium* quality is sufficient the screening medium (LCD screens, movie theaters) should be freely accessible to the public.
I agree except rather then all films I think it should be all films that are publicly funded while independent films (and art) remain the personal property of the artist till they either enter it into the public domain (by showing it publicly) or they die, of course I don't see much demand for independent films artists wouldn't want made public.

[Stranger Than Paradise]

My view is that art should be produced by everyone and will be produced by everyone in their time away from working. Because Anarchism/Communism should mean humans will be closer to fulfilling their creative potential. This should also not mean we have to move backwards in terms of technology either. The technology we have today should be allowed to be accessed by all. I'm not sure how this would work exactly in terms of making a film. I suppose those who want to direct, those who want to act etc. would say so and to get the film made everyone would contribute to all the work that needed to be done.

[Psy]

My view is that art should be produced by everyone and will be produced by everyone in their time away from working. Because Anarchism/Communism should mean humans will be closer to fulfilling their creative potential. This should also not mean we have to move backwards in terms of technology either. The technology we have today should be allowed to be accessed by all. I'm not sure how this would work exactly in terms of making a film. I suppose those who want to direct, those who want to act etc. would say so and to get the film made everyone would contribute to all the work that needed to be done.
But are there not more talented artist then others? Won't there be demand for larger scale art along side the smaller scale ones?

[Revy]

I'm a fan of surrealism. It has a very revolutionary history as well.

So-called "socialist realism" was just the name given to art approved by authoritarian bureaucratic states. So surrealism was more easily embraced by anarchists, left-communists, and Trotskyists.

[Psy]

I'm a fan of surrealism. It has a very revolutionary history as well.

So-called "socialist realism" was just the name given to art approved by authoritarian bureaucratic states. So surrealism was more easily embraced by anarchists, left-communists, and Trotskyists.
Well this brings up another question would there be socialist art schools? Or would artists simply share their knowledge with each out other in studios? Or would there be on the job training for artists as they work with senior artists on large projects turning senior artists into the teachers of the younger artists?

[ckaihatsu]

I agree except rather then all films I think it should be all films that are publicly funded while independent films (and art) remain the personal property of the artist till they either enter it into the public domain (by showing it publicly) or they die, of course I don't see much demand for independent films artists wouldn't want made public.


This is an interesting wrinkle here -- I guess I would have to agree with you here, Psy -- a person could keep their production to themselves, as a *personal* project, if they worked and accumulated the necessary labor credits to fund their own work.

My inclination is to say that the communist state should simply provide *all* of the backing that individual, or small-group, artists would need, as human needs, but I guess that would kind of introduce the material factor of the public, through the communist state's funding, having a direct material interest in the product of that funding. So, as usual, if someone really wants to keep their work under wraps they should fund it themselves....





Well this brings up another question would there be socialist art schools? Or would artists simply share their knowledge with each out other in studios? Or would there be on the job training for artists as they work with senior artists on large projects turning senior artists into the teachers of the younger artists?


From the strictly political-logistical standpoint I think the *means* of art education would be a far simpler issue than the overarching question of what types of art projects (and engineering projects) society should support. I don't mean to address the process of art education itself, which is a wholly different topic.

Certainly people could freely band together according to their inclinations, at the most organic level, in a timeless fashion. *Formal* art schools would hopefully just be a matter of implementing the formality of it, with policy-based relationships instead of voluntary ones. Funding would follow the respective policy frameworks....





Yet it would boil down to artists, we reached the point were we could easily provide all artists enough resources to build up a portfolio of small scale workers either from their homes, in small local studios or other free public space (that would comprise most of the space) for example putting on plays and concerts in parks.


Right -- I think most small-scale projects would be funded as a matter of course, as a basic human right to the means of creativity.





Yet when it comes to large studios putting out larger works the more original the work the harder it is to judge early on in production as the artist probably doesn't know for sure if their ideas would work as they are trying something that hasn't been done before especially if they are experimenting in the process itself.


Larger projects would necessarily become political issues, because of the scale of funding required. This is where we run into the political framework of what society should consider as art-oriented and what it should not. I agree with Wilde that art should be that which is basically *use-less*, while *engineering* (applied science) projects are those that are *use-ful*.

I don't have anything to add beyond this rather broad definition of art...! (Not that I have any political obligation to, either, until we get down to individual cases....)





Before film makers tried scratching film on purpose to simulate age they didn't know if it would work same with randomly drawing lines to get the same effect and the same with using black construction paper for the background layer and poking pin holes into it to get light effects on the animation cells above. Since not even the arts knows exactly what the end result would be your mostly be deciding the resource funding of artists based on their portfolio and the basic idea they are starting off with that might change during the production stage as the artists might think up a better idea for what they already got and re-work the entire idea into something else.


Fortunately, this example you're raising would be a *minor* issue, from a material / political standpoint. Perhaps the scale of *some* artistic endeavors -- like landscape art, for instance -- would *quickly* necessarily involve the public political process.... And, depending on the artist's method, some works-in-progress might be very *speculative* in nature, materially speaking, thus creating corresponding *messy* *political* issues over resource usage....

[ckaihatsu]

I'm a fan of surrealism. It has a very revolutionary history as well.


Franklin Rosemont (1943-2009): Leading US surrealist and anthologist of André Breton dies

By Paul Bond
25 April 2009

The death of Franklin Rosemont deserves some notice. He played an important role in popularising the work of poet André Breton for English-speaking audiences, while the foundation of the Chicago Surrealist Group to some extent revived the movement after Breton’s death. Rosemont was also a noted labour historian and publisher.

http://wsws.org/articles/2009/apr2009/rose-a25.shtml

[ckaihatsu]

Psy, all,

I'd like to extend the part of this thread's topic that deals with the material planning for the future, in a future communist society.

Just as reconciling the past with the present is the underlying basis of the most difficult issues that anyone can face, so too is the basis of planning for the future while limited only to knowledge of the past and present.

To this latter end I prepared this form, the oft-referenced "political balance sheet", here made manifest:


communist supply & demand -- Political balance sheet

http://tinyurl.com/cy5ypy


It is meant to illustrate that efforts not directed towards subsistence or pleasure will *necessarily* have a political component to them -- as well as economic -- and that these politically motivated efforts can *always* be shown to have both *political* and *economic* results, or outputs. I can only address operational efforts in the abstract -- obviously the interplay of many more material factors in the real world makes for both positive (reinforcing) and negative (destructive) forces alongside one's own. ( For a framework of always-constant material factors, I'd recommend 'History: Macro-Micro', at tinyurl.com/2dafgr )

I'd like to point out that I made the political balance sheet in the context of a "communist supply & demand" conception of societal economics. In accordance with this conception I have a "gain / loss in labor credits" column at the end of the row -- this formulation both serves to remove the economic portion from the realm of current, commodity-based valuation, while also recognizing that political forces can result in economic outcomes (and vice-versa) no matter what the mode of production happens to be.

One question arose in my mind as I considered this formulation: Would there be a situation in which political activity in a future communist society would produce a *gain* of labor credits for an individual?

At first glance this seemed like it could be a problem because seemingly in virtually all cases the political efforts of *anyone* would be in the interests of administering the communist material assets and resources *in common*, *for the common good*. Many fellow Marxists and communists might even take exception to the concept of *labor credits* *at all* in a truly communist society, again for this reason.

However, I maintain that even a fully integrated, post-commodity-production communist economy will still have to deal with the ever-present question of how to plan well for the future, for its population *and* for the use of its material assets and resources. *Some* sort of bookkeeping will have to be used, and I happen to advocate a system of labor-hour-based *labor credits* -- with survey-derived *difficulty* -- as a labor-based measure of value. ( Please see 'revolutionary policy *solution*' -- www.revleft.com/vb/blog.php?b=275 )

In terms of an individual's incurring of a *loss* of labor credits in the process of political activity, I think we can easily see that someone could decide to make a *donation* of earned labor credits, towards the cost of a more-speculative, experimental-type political activity -- one that the greater communist society might not be willing to fund in full, or at all. An example could be doing some sort of specialized experimentation in high-altitude, zero-gravity conditions.

Any *benefits* of such experimentation would be collectivized anyway, of course, netting a *loss* of labor credits for the individual (or small group).

But what about the possibility of a *gain* of labor credits for an individual, based on political activity in a fully collectivized, communist society? At first glance the scenario seems absolutely *absurd* -- all *politics* would take place in a fully collectivized context, thus precluding the need for *any* type of purely *speculative*, much less self-serving, political motivations. In a *capitalist* context this kind of politics is commonplace, and fully encouraged by the nature of profit-seeking and commodity production itself.

But -- regarding the rational administration of a collectivized, communist economy going forward into the future, we have to consider the existence of *uncertainty*, or risk, even for the most mundane, consistent operations, like food production. (Unwelcome, fierce weather conditions might still continue to exercise influence over crop yields, at least in the early stages.)

I'll advance a more dramatic -- though still realistic -- scenario here, for the sake of illustration. Consider the question of exploration into new methods of sourcing energy. While a communist administration would be driven primarily by strictly humanitarian-utilitarian motivations, there would exist an outlying edge, or fringe, of legitimate rational inquiry that would concern *itself* with the question of *efficiency*, or *optimal* use of existing resources to *leverage* the *greatest* of energy reserves, for whatever uses the communist society could possibly come up with.

If *more* energy was available than what the current state of society could possibly use, then the *rate* of energy sourcing could simply be decreased to whatever level was appropriate, but this is a separate issue from how *best* to leverage efforts to *access* the *most potent* forms of energy available.

Towards this end there might be a person, or persons, who decide to engage in political efforts, arguing for a mandate within the communist economy to investigate experimental, unconventional forms of energy for possible sourcing. This faction could hypothetically put in a 40-hour workweek in the process of advancing their political position, and they might even gain some traction based on their efforts. Normally, in the context of a communist politics, this political effort would just be incidental, one strand of many in a ubiquitous practice of political involvement at any and all levels of a collectivized, political economy. As such it would be nothing special and would certainly not be compensated.

*However*, if this faction's position rose to prominence and became widely accepted, to the point of becoming a part of official policy, there *might* (*might*) arise the question of *administration* of this particular type of energy sourcing endeavor -- if this were the case, those who *advocated* for this energy sourcing would *also* be the *most qualified* to be a part of its administration -- unlike in the context of capitalism where moneyed interests invariably supplant the expertise of pioneers and inventors who are subsequently pushed to the wayside as enterprises become financed and expand.

The issue of *retroactive* administration could be a valid argument here -- that, without the speculative political efforts of the small group, there would never have been a chance for this better type of energy sourcing to become a reality. In this case the *past* *political* efforts of the small group could very well be accorded the status of *retroactive administration* and corresponding labor credits would be transferred on this basis alone.

This scenario could apply equally well in the domain of *art*, where a particular, large-scale, *planned* artistic endeavor would have to be "lobbied for", and approved, by the larger communist administration -- say, for the example of landscape artwork -- before the project could go forward in reality. The specific political efforts put in towards this approval could then, also, be considered "retroactive administration" and be compensated accordingly.

In this way, either for practical or strictly artistic endeavors, an individual (or group) engaging in routine, though pointed, political activity in a communist society could wind up with {an economic} *gain* on their political balance sheet.

As a disclaimer, I assure the reader that this is merely an exercise in logical extrapolation and is not meant to be a policy argument itself -- as if it could be, considering the circumstances -- !

[STJ]

The same way it works now minus the money part.

[Schrödinger's Cat]

The same way it works now minus the money part.

This.

I think people only see a problem with determining what art would satisfy "livelihood" because they assume the state would be the economic arbitrator of all wages, instead of voluntary networks.

[Sam_b]

This is all called Socialist Realism

Yes, and was nothing more than a disgusting artistic throttle. Of course, not just applicable to art, the policy of Socialist Realism in the Central and East European states also applied to film ans literature. I'll tell you what one of the hallmarks of SR was: really, really shit books. This was mainly down to what is commonly known now as the "manufactured novel", almost always with the same storylines and conclusions.

The overwhelming majority of such work bases itself around a 'worker-hero' who encounters some sort of drastic crisis (destruction of the crops, problems with building factory etc) and through clever thinking, hard work, and class consciousness is able to divert such a crisis from happening. It all then tied in with the image of the hard working, proletarian "new Soviet man". The Russian author Maxim Gorky is often accredited with this literary tradition.

Of course, any political dissent or expression through the arts was stifled, and all official publications had to go through the respective artist's unions. Expulsion from the artistic union often meant that your productive output would never see the light of day: Pasternak's Dr Zhivago was relatively unkown despite becoming a bestseller as it needed to be smuggled out of the country. The only release from any of this came with the respected 'thaws' experienced in each country, under the guise of 'anti-Stalinisation' and the like. This allowed more scathing work to be published for a brief time, including:

1. Poland - Andrzej Wejda's classic film Ashes and Diamonds, one of my personal favourites in Polish cinema, equally scathing in both measure of the Communists and the Home Army in the days after the Second World War (Released in 1958, the 'thaw' had started about two years previously, and similarly caused an explosion in the underground dissident poet's movement).

2. Czechoslovakia - The most obvious one in the liberal 60s for the state would be Closely Watched Trains, but I believe that there is also effective communication of dissident ideas and experimentations of camerawork in 1966's Obchod Na Korze (Shop on the Main Street).

3. Russia - Undoubtedly the biting and scathing A Day in the Life of Ivan Denisovich by Alexandr Solzhenitsyn. Khrushchev is said to have authorised the publication persoanlly, and it became a huge hit at the time after being published in the literary journal Novy Mir, before being banned again.

If there is one blessing to be had from SR, in my view it gave rise to very expressionalist and symbolic writing pieces filled with double meanings and interesting interpretations. But it would be wrong to glorify the policy of Socialist Realism to ridiculous extents where it was really used for years and years to try and force through thought rather than focusing on concrete practices to try and get the population on side, and stunted developments and the arts in the Central and Eastern Bloc. And I don't think stunted is a strong enough word here - for any real expression dissident writers had to move abroad in order to pursue their ideas (Pasternak, Solzhenitsyn, Kundera, eventually Nemec) and drained any real expression from the countries in question. Not only that but then they had to contend with our Wetsern capitalist systems, who only give a damn about how much something can sell.

I would hope that a Communist society would be able to encourage artists, writers and film-makers not just to create their pieces for entertainment, but also to try and get away from the uber-commercialism we see now and to try and push their mediums as far as they can go (especially, for me, in film and music). This essential cultural 'development' so to speak, I think would be beneficial to us all as a whole. Suffice to say, literature, film, art would be freely accessible not just to attend and see, but to participate and be encouraged freely rather than with ridiculous economical, or political constraints.

[Psy]

Psy, all,

I'd like to extend the part of this thread's topic that deals with the material planning for the future, in a future communist society.


Well you have a question of dealing with equipment and machines as they age (and as technology improves). For example there would be the question of when to upgrade studio equipment and what to do with aged studio equipment that is still in good working order (yet far too bulky for personal use), ie would smaller studios simply get hand me down equipment from the larger studios till the equipment ends it life in a museum or recycling centre?

High definition is yet another example. There are videophiles really care about video quality while you have others that are don't find the jump in video quality in picture quality that big of deal. You don't just have the higher cost of high definition equipment but the fact that you already have fully functional equipment being used so you are going to have to have a upgrade strategy for society.

[ckaihatsu]

The same way it works now minus the money part.


Yeah, as I outline in my blog entry I think we can view *any* economy in the extremely generic terms of 'supply' and 'demand' -- meaning that *any* productive process, no matter how socially organized, is the "supply", while all outstanding needs and wants would be the "demand".

A worker-organized economy would be far better than just eliminating the messiness of the money medium of exchange -- it would transcend commercialism and commercial interests altogether, meaning that people would have to find other motivations for participating in the 'supply' process of the economy.

In some discussions here at RevLeft people have noted that plenty of people do what they do *without* being mindful of the economics of what they do -- we could call these people artists, hobbyists, purists, volunteers, or do-gooders -- in a post-capitalist, more-humane social environment there would certainly be more general social acceptance for these types, and certainly a basic level of social welfare to support their well-being while they engage in what they like to do.

The "money part" is not meaning-neutral, as the bourgeois would have us believe -- the very nature of money-mediated transactions implies a whole set of political power relationships that reinforce the authority of private property above all else, to begin with.

[ckaihatsu]

For example there would be the question of when to upgrade studio equipment and what to do with aged studio equipment that is still in good working order (yet far too bulky for personal use), ie would smaller studios simply get hand me down equipment from the larger studios till the equipment ends it life in a museum or recycling centre?


Are you suggesting that you have some ideas yourself for addressing this particular issue, Psy?

It's the kind of thing that is *very* detail- and context-sensitive -- we *could* attempt to discuss it here in an abstract way but I don't think the issue lends itself very well to abstract discussion -- either it's in a real-world situation or it isn't.

[Psy]

Are you suggesting that you have some ideas yourself for addressing this particular issue, Psy?

It's the kind of thing that is *very* detail- and context-sensitive -- we *could* attempt to discuss it here in an abstract way but I don't think the issue lends itself very well to abstract discussion -- either it's in a real-world situation or it isn't.
Only that freeing up useful equipment when planning upgrades would probably factor into planning. For example giving large studio's newer equipment means their equipment can be handed down to smaller studios yet you'd still run into a question of frequency of upgrading equipment since it requires labor to upgrade.

[Psy]

This scenario could apply equally well in the domain of *art*, where a particular, large-scale, *planned* artistic endeavor would have to be "lobbied for", and approved, by the larger communist administration -- say, for the example of landscape artwork -- before the project could go forward in reality. The specific political efforts put in towards this approval could then, also, be considered "retroactive administration" and be compensated accordingly.

In this way, either for practical or strictly artistic endeavors, an individual (or group) engaging in routine, though pointed, political activity in a communist society could wind up with {an economic} *gain* on their political balance sheet.


I don't think that wouldn't really work that well for film, TV, games and radio. Can you image the larger communist administration going through all the works coming out of the large LA studios while they are still in production? I think for the case of large studio I think they would have yearly plans passed down from the larger administration like a quota for original works set in the yearly plan. This way instead of planning based on what is in production it would be planning based on what was produced and what people want produced. You could even do this for other types of planning.

[ckaihatsu]

I don't think that wouldn't really work that well for film, TV, games and radio. Can you image the larger communist administration going through all the works coming out of the large LA studios while they are still in production? I think for the case of large studio I think they would have yearly plans passed down from the larger administration like a quota for original works set in the yearly plan. This way instead of planning based on what is in production it would be planning based on what was produced and what people want produced. You could even do this for other types of planning.


The point of having *any* administration *at all* is to provide a general system of oversight over assets and resources, one that alleviates competition and disputes among participants so that things can run more smoothly that they could *without* an administration.

Even capitalism and the most competitive sports use *some* kind of system of oversight or refereeing, however slight.

I'm concerned that you're making the communist administration of this discussion sound like a heavy-handed bureaucracy. There's nothing to discuss if we wind up just re-hashing something that's Stalinist-like in composition.

Given a post-capitalist / communist administration we could *speculate* as to how it might be enabled to regulate different kinds of art-producing assets, but I think we've reached the point of pure speculation here. I really hesitate to get into matters of specific policy when we're not even there yet....

[Psy]

The point of having *any* administration *at all* is to provide a general system of oversight over assets and resources, one that alleviates competition and disputes among participants so that things can run more smoothly that they could *without* an administration.

Even capitalism and the most competitive sports use *some* kind of system of oversight or refereeing, however slight.

I'm concerned that you're making the communist administration of this discussion sound like a heavy-handed bureaucracy. There's nothing to discuss if we wind up just re-hashing something that's Stalinist-like in composition.

How so? Outside recommendations and quotas set by the larger administration the studio (as in the collective body of workers in the studio) would be free to manage its projects and even the recommendations and quotas would be based on the publics reaction to the previous year and not any reaction to works under production or being planned, meaning the studios doesn't even have to spoil works in process as the public plans based on what the studio has done not what it is currently doing and the studio plans what it is doing based on this feedback on the larger society.

I don't see how this is Stainlist at all, to me it is the opposite as it gives workers freedom to meet what the larger society planned.

[ckaihatsu]

I don't see how this is Stainlist at all, to me it is the opposite as it gives workers freedom to meet what the larger society planned.


Sorry -- I don't mean to be accusatory here.





How so? Outside recommendations and quotas set by the larger administration the studio (as in the collective body of workers in the studio) would be free to manage its projects and even the recommendations and quotas would be based on the publics reaction to the previous year and not any reaction to works under production or being planned, meaning the studios doesn't even have to spoil works in process as the public plans based on what the studio has done not what it is currently doing and the studio plans what it is doing based on this feedback on the larger society.


I'm concerned about having the *consumers'* opinion of artwork as a factor in shaping future projects. I don't think it should be considered as the most significant factor -- or even as a factor *at all* -- in the planning of assets and resources for future projects. I think more *material* considerations should be paramount, such as how much land something would require, for how long, should more labor be requested, if so what types, and so on.

The *content* should *not* be a consideration, as much as possible, because it's irrelevant from an administrative point of view.

[Psy]

I'm concerned about having the *consumers'* opinion of artwork as a factor in shaping future projects. I don't think it should be considered as the most significant factor -- or even as a factor *at all* -- in the planning of assets and resources for future projects. I think more *material* considerations should be paramount, such as how much land something would require, for how long, should more labor be requested, if so what types, and so on.

The *content* should *not* be a consideration, as much as possible, because it's irrelevant from an administrative point of view.
But what you are suggesting would transfer project planning from the studio to the larger administration. Instead of studios getting a flat budget that the studios spends how it sees fit, all their project budgets would get decided by the larger administration.

As of consumers opinion factoring in planning of future projects, you can't get around that as artists want feedback. Even the most experimental artists crave to find out what people think of their work.

[ckaihatsu]

As of consumers opinion factoring in planning of future projects, you can't get around that as artists want feedback. Even the most experimental artists crave to find out what people think of their work.


I didn't *preclude* feedback from the public to the artists -- that's part of society, and isn't (or shouldn't be) a concern for administrative matters.





But what you are suggesting would transfer project planning from the studio to the larger administration. Instead of studios getting a flat budget that the studios spends how it sees fit, all their project budgets would get decided by the larger administration.


In my own conception of a communist administration there wouldn't be any use of *money*, since it's a commodity, by definition. Studios would make political demands for the provision of job positions (with budgets of labor credits to provide compensation for labor, for labor's sourcing of resources, and for labor's upkeep of assets, etc.) against the communist administration, according to their projects and productions. Data would be kept and analyzed for all aspects of every production, with the data and analyses reported to the public at large.

In this way all studios' administrative performance would be a matter of public record and discussion, with the possibility of political movements forming in the interests of expanding some studios while downscaling, or closing, others. Again, this kind of politics would be separate from the *content*, or subject matter, of the productions themselves.

[Psy]

In my own conception of a communist administration there wouldn't be any use of *money*, since it's a commodity, by definition. Studios would make political demands for the provision of job positions (with budgets of labor credits to provide compensation for labor, for labor's sourcing of resources, and for labor's upkeep of assets, etc.) against the communist administration, according to their projects and productions. Data would be kept and analyzed for all aspects of every production, with the data and analyses reported to the public at large.

In this way all studios' administrative performance would be a matter of public record and discussion, with the possibility of political movements forming in the interests of expanding some studios while downscaling, or closing, others. Again, this kind of politics would be separate from the *content*, or subject matter, of the productions themselves.
But what is wrong with studios simply meeting the demands of the larger society based on their set budget (of resources) and larger society setting goals for the studios?

[ckaihatsu]

But what is wrong with studios simply meeting the demands of the larger society based on their set budget (of resources) and larger society setting goals for the studios?


The larger society can certainly make demands of the communist administration to have a certain variety of consumer goods and services, including art and entertainment -- it would then be a matter of putting out the call for labor to fill the respective, needed positions. Ultimately it would be up to *labor* to decide if certain goals are fulfilled or not -- labor would not be under the least amount of obligation to the larger society.

Keep in mind that every labor credit issued to a worker would be a debt against the future societal workforce for an hour of roughly equivalent labor. This is not necessarily a bad thing -- it's a way of keeping things in rotation, and of keeping the economy in motion and going forward. As more people participate the overall size and diversity of the economy expands. Plenty of people could decide to opt out and live simpler lives free of duress for the basics of living, but they would also miss out on the benefits and experiences that a complex, interconnected communist economy could provide.

[Psy]

The larger society can certainly make demands of the communist administration to have a certain variety of consumer goods and services, including art and entertainment -- it would then be a matter of putting out the call for labor to fill the respective, needed positions. Ultimately it would be up to *labor* to decide if certain goals are fulfilled or not -- labor would not be under the least amount of obligation to the larger society.

Keep in mind that every labor credit issued to a worker would be a debt against the future societal workforce for an hour of roughly equivalent labor. This is not necessarily a bad thing -- it's a way of keeping things in rotation, and of keeping the economy in motion and going forward. As more people participate the overall size and diversity of the economy expands. Plenty of people could decide to opt out and live simpler lives free of duress for the basics of living, but they would also miss out on the benefits and experiences that a complex, interconnected communist economy could provide.

But we are talking about means of production, the studio is more then simply workers but means of production and that is where the larger society is justified in making demands on production yet that doesn't mean larger society should go around micromanaging production. Here is an example say for argument the larger society decides they want more educational TV shows (for both kids and adults on a variety of topic), the larger society makes this recommendation to the TV stations possibly with a minimal quota. The TV stations would be free to fulfil this request (or quota) how they see fit be it a series on general science or a mini-series on the life of Karl Marx.

[ckaihatsu]

But we are talking about means of production, the studio is more then simply workers but means of production


No, this is where I would have a fundamental difference of perspective with you. A studio *is* reducible to its workforce, no matter how transient or shifting. The whole *point* of having a revolution is to *displace* the primacy of assets and resources (the means of mass production), in favor of labor's administration over its own interests.

Anything material that is utilized by labor is *lesser* than human beings ourselves and should be regarded as *auxiliary* and *subservient* to the interests of human beings, particularly labor.





and that is where the larger society is justified in making demands on production yet that doesn't mean larger society should go around micromanaging production.


Again, *any* production requires labor, so the project / production is reducible to labor hours (and difficulty) as the standard unit of measurement. Micromanagement can be avoided by implementing a layer of administration -- derived from and part of each project's actual participating body of laborers, to self-manage its own labor in the project, and the overall project itself. It, in turn, would be in coordination with the larger societal communist administration about its own performance in accordance with the agreed-upon parameters of the project, as approved by the communist administration (see next section).





Here is an example say for argument the larger society decides they want more educational TV shows (for both kids and adults on a variety of topic), the larger society makes this recommendation to the TV stations possibly with a minimal quota. The TV stations would be free to fulfil this request (or quota) how they see fit be it a series on general science or a mini-series on the life of Karl Marx.


This example is fine -- I would also add in the variables of geographical location -- meaning possibilities / options among various capable assets (means of production), and also the variability of different populations of labor. Some areas -- like larger cities -- may be better equipped than other areas to provide the human and material resources required by this kind of production schedule. Labor's strength is in being organized, so the best-trained and best-experienced labor for TV production may have formed unions / collectives, in whatever area, so that they can collectively hold out for better compensation, via political demands and refusal to work, from the communist administration.

I would be comfortable with a system of floating labor credit rates -- per project -- as long as all property was collectivized (no private property). This would allow certain areas -- possibly rural areas -- to be competitive with larger, more organized collectives of labor so that conditions of runaway syndicalism could be avoided. The larger society would have a material interest in "shopping around" for relatively "inexpensive" material conditions, if only so that it didn't practice de facto favoritism by acceding over and over again to a well-established, domineering collective of labor. The larger society, through its communist administration, would make a final determination from several feasible scenarios and render a decision regarding what combination of material and human resources to use based on logistics, cost of labor, and other variables. Considerations of geographical proximity and overall material logistics could very well become the *primary* factor in a post-capitalist economy (and not so much the "competition" from varying rates of labor hours).

[Psy]

No, this is where I would have a fundamental difference of perspective with you. A studio *is* reducible to its workforce, no matter how transient or shifting. The whole *point* of having a revolution is to *displace* the primacy of assets and resources (the means of mass production), in favor of labor's administration over its own interests.

Anything material that is utilized by labor is *lesser* than human beings ourselves and should be regarded as *auxiliary* and *subservient* to the interests of human beings, particularly labor.

You'd have planning revolving around the means of production, when a bunch of workers get together to produce without significant means of production you don't need to plan them.

[ckaihatsu]

You'd have planning revolving around the means of production, when a bunch of workers get together to produce without significant means of production you don't need to plan them.


Psy, I hope you appreciate the importance of having revolutionary Marxist politics -- again, the *point* of a revolution is to *** put the workers in charge of their own labor ***.

This means that *** no one *** "needs" to plan *for* the workers -- as workers we can organize and plan *** for ourselves ***. As long as we have the means to an existence free of coercion and duress we will have the means at our disposal to *organize* into labor collectives in order to represent our *own* best interests, as labor.

Plenty of work in post-industrial areas of the economy aren't accompanied by *any* means of mass production -- the work is in the service sector, so at most you might have a store or an office or something. Regardless of whether the facility is manufacturing-oriented or service-oriented the point is that nothing economic gets done without a labor force to do it.

My previous points still stand about the human political need for a worldwide workers' revolution to bring us to a post-capitalist society, so that labor may administrate its own efforts in its own interests, no matter what the material or political infrastructure happens to be.

[Psy]

Psy, I hope you appreciate the importance of having revolutionary Marxist politics -- again, the *point* of a revolution is to *** put the workers in charge of their own labor ***.

This means that *** no one *** "needs" to plan *for* the workers -- as workers we can organize and plan *** for ourselves ***. As long as we have the means to an existence free of coercion and duress we will have the means at our disposal to *organize* into labor collectives in order to represent our *own* best interests, as labor.

Plenty of work in post-industrial areas of the economy aren't accompanied by *any* means of mass production -- the work is in the service sector, so at most you might have a store or an office or something. Regardless of whether the facility is manufacturing-oriented or service-oriented the point is that nothing economic gets done without a labor force to do it.

My previous points still stand about the human political need for a worldwide workers' revolution to bring us to a post-capitalist society, so that labor may administrate its own efforts in its own interests, no matter what the material or political infrastructure happens to be.
You still need to plan the productive capacity to some extent for example to plan electricity production you'd make plans based on electricity production facilities and the supporting means of production. I don't see coal power plant workers alone planning how to get coal to feed their plant and how much electricity they should be producing for the grid.

[ckaihatsu]

you still need to plan the productive capacity to some extent for example to plan electricity production you'd make plans based on electricity production facilities and the supporting means of production. I don't see coal power plant workers alone planning how to get coal to feed their plant and how much electricity they should be producing for the grid.


---





the larger society can certainly make demands of the communist administration to have a certain variety of consumer goods and services, including art and entertainment -- it would then be a matter of putting out the call for labor to fill the respective, needed positions. Ultimately it would be up to *labor* to decide if certain goals are fulfilled or not -- labor would not be under the least amount of obligation to the larger society.


---





the roles of consumer and producer are two different, separate roles, and are unrelated in any one single individual.

Supply chains end with the consumer, and originate with the sourcing of materials (usually from the environment, or nature). We can simply start with the end user, the consumer, and work our way *backwards*, up the supply chain, to establish the chains of supply, including labor, needed for the manufacture of certain goods and services at each step.

As i've noted in the excerpt reproduced above, the supply of labor at any given step in the supply chain would necessarily involve political discussion and planning. All assets and resources required by labor for any given step would also be political issues and would have to be resolved by the workers concerned.

http://www.revleft.com/vb/blog.php?b=275

[Eva]

I can think of one current example to more of less answer your question.

In Venezuela, the National System of Youth Orchestras was founded in 1975 by an amateur musician named Jose Antonio Abreu. At the beginning, Abreu taught basic music theory to kids from poor neighborhoods with musical instruments that were for the most part donated to him. The program was completely non-profit from the start, relying on government funding. The program eventually grew nationwide. By 1994, over 150 orchestras had been established. Graduated pupils served as teachers. That year, Abreu's work earned him an UNESCO award.

The musical excellence of the orchestra has earned them invitations to the United Nations, the Vatican, and theaters all across the world. They have performed with several celebrated classical performers.

One very gifted student named Gustavo Dudamel became the National Youth Orchestra's director in 1999, at age 18. On his first year, he won an excellence award for direction in Germany. He has been invited to be a guest director of the Los Angeles Phillarmonic, the Symphonic Orchestras of Gothenburg, Stuttgart, Vienna, and Berlin; and won many awards.

Of course, many uppity critics believe that they are pretty mundane and are not impressed at all, but that comes with making any kind of art. Generally speaking, they are pretty successful.

I think that specially in a leftist society, art something created with the purpose of being shared (in the case of this example, internationally). I don't see is as a hobby, but rather as very real pursuit; and I believe that ultimately, as a product, it belongs to everyone for everybody is a tiny bit responsible for its creation (those who inspire it, those who provide the tools, those who provide the instruction, and those who put it together). In terms of what pieces would be preferred by a general audience, I think is a matter that would be judged with the same subjectivity with which is judged in any other scenario, and that some artist will celebrated through a common consensus of what it means excel, and what it gives a piece artistic merit.

[Psy]

Ckaihatsu, yes the workers are not obligated themselves to fulfil the demands of larger society but the means of production does. If need be the larger society has the right replace workers with workers that will use the means of production to better meet the demands of society as the worker doesn't have the right to deny access to means of production to other workers.

[ckaihatsu]

Ckaihatsu, yes the workers are not obligated themselves to fulfil the demands of larger society but the means of production does. If need be the larger society has the right replace workers with workers that will use the means of production to better meet the demands of society as the worker doesn't have the right to deny access to means of production to other workers.


Right -- this is consistent with our discussion so far.

The means of mass production everywhere would be collectivized, meaning that it would be owned by everyone and no one -- the interests of the larger society would necessarily (obviously) be greater than that of any grouping of workers, but that *doesn't* necessarily, automatically imply that coercion could be used to force any group of workers, or individual workers, to work if they didn't want to. There might be some rare cases where, due to unusual and pressing circumstances, the larger society *would* compel labor on the basis of authority, but these cases would have to be severe -- revolutionary activity against the forces of private capital, or responding immediately to some natural disaster, for example.

The interests of the larger society would be represented through the most expansive, generalized body of collective administration -- a top-level communist administration of some sort, I'd imagine.





The overall administration (central planning) would be bottom-up, in terms of pooling workers' political initiatives together into an overarching, societal policy.

The overall *execution* of that administration would be top-down, in terms of coordinating among the industries into a single network of social planning, by project, tapping local assets in a rational manner to effect policy.


Btw, as a heads-up, I finished yet another diagram that might be handy and useful -- feel free to check it out at the following link. It's basically a political spectrum:


Ideologies & Operations -- Fundamentals

http://tinyurl.com/d2564h

[Random Precision]

Socialist states had some of the most beautiful murals of workers in factories, farmers in fields, leaders meeting the people, etc... This is all called Socialist Realism, they were beautiful and unique pieces of art that were meant to inspire the best of the people of the socialist nations

Socialist Realism is government-regulated, mass-produced, disgusting petty-bourgeois kitsch. And it's worth noting that the most adventurous artists in the Soviet Union, whether in painting, literature, music or film were either silenced or made to conform to party standards on "proletarian culture" or "bourgeois formalism" after the rise of Stalinism.

[Psy]

Right -- this is consistent with our discussion so far.

The means of mass production everywhere would be collectivized, meaning that it would be owned by everyone and no one

A better description would be would be that the means of production would be part of the commons.



-- the interests of the larger society would necessarily (obviously) be greater than that of any grouping of workers, but that *doesn't* necessarily, automatically imply that coercion could be used to force any group of workers, or individual workers, to work if they didn't want to. There might be some rare cases where, due to unusual and pressing circumstances, the larger society *would* compel labor on the basis of authority, but these cases would have to be severe -- revolutionary activity against the forces of private capital, or responding immediately to some natural disaster, for example.

The interests of the larger society would be represented through the most expansive, generalized body of collective administration -- a top-level communist administration of some sort, I'd imagine.

This not about forcing workers to work, it is about the larger society being able to replace workers in a means of production with those that more willing to meet the demands of society. Basically if the artists of a large studio are not working out for society then the society has the right to give other artists a chance to have access to the large studio.

[ckaihatsu]

This not about forcing workers to work, it is about the larger society being able to replace workers in a means of production with those that more willing to meet the demands of society. Basically if the artists of a large studio are not working out for society then the society has the right to give other artists a chance to have access to the large studio.


Hopefully a post-capitalist society will set up the institutions of direct democracy, workers' administration, and communist administration in such a way that these levels of varying material interests will balance out fairly well. I think we're again at the point in our discussion where it would be difficult to plan or speculate further, in the absence of actual empirical conditions to observe.

[SecondLife]

I think 'socialist realism' was very big mistake, it destroys people belief to communism. I think in communism all directions are needed. But if question is "what art direction best suits to communism", then I believe this is certainly futurism.

[ckaihatsu]

"what art direction best suits to communism", then I believe this is certainly futurism.


---





[A young person] either falls into careless habits of accuracy, or takes to frequenting the society of the aged and the well-informed. Both things are equally fatal to his imagination, as indeed they would be fatal to the imagination of anybody, and in a short time he develops a morbid and unhealthy faculty of truth-telling, begins to verify all statements made in his presence, has no hesitation in contradicting people who are much younger than himself, and often ends by writing novels which are so lifelike that no one can possibly believe in their probability. This is no isolated instance that we are giving. It is simply one example out of many; and if something cannot be done to check, or at least to modify, our monstrous worship of facts, Art will become sterile, and beauty will pass away from the land.

http://www.gutenberg.org/dirs/etext97/ntntn10.txt

[Psy]

I think 'socialist realism' was very big mistake, it destroys people belief to communism. I think in communism all directions are needed. But if question is "what art direction best suits to communism", then I believe this is certainly futurism.

I don't think you can have mono-culture of art. For example I think the debate between Dziga Vertov and Sergei Eisenstein during the early years of the U.S.S.R was a pointless debate as both represented valid styles of revolutary art, Sergei Einsenstein used epic stories that contained revolutionary ideas while Dziga Vertov got rid of context all together in the hopes the audience would create their own context.