In a Socialist State would there be censorship as far as Music ?

This may be a dumb question but in a Socialist State would there be censorship as far as Music ? I listen to all kinds of Music is why Im asking. I enjoy Music but I don't think people should be making millions of dolars a year off of Music.

Marx and Engels on Music
by Mark Lindley

http://mrzine.monthlyreview.org/2010/lindley180810.html

There's no telling. What is a "Socialist state" and how do you even know it could exist? The only Socialist states we know of were of the 20th century. To say there is a pure form, as Cockshott pointed out, is to take an abstract society and compare it with a real, actual existing one, which is completely Idealist.

But this doesn't require heavy thinking, really. If they would deem it necessary, for whatever reason, then yes. Socialists do not exist to ponder on what possibilities a "Socialist society" could bring about.

There is no way to tell, some communities may, some may not. I would live in the communities that do not.

Not unless whatever force which brought the society into existence deemed said music a threat (in which case I would be wondering about the character of this so-called progressive force).

Being a huge music fan I would hope not.

'Socialist state' is a contradiction in terms. Furthermore; any consistent Socialist should be categorically opposed to censorship.

If I can't listen to shitty white power rock, it's not my revolution.

First off, "socialist state" is a contradiction. Socialism is a classless society, while the state is an organ of class rule; they are completely incompatible.

I don't see how censorship of music would really be necessary. During the revolutionary phase, I don't see how enforced censorship of music by the proletarian dictatorship could really be an effective means of combating counter-revolution. It would just be a waste of resources.

After the revolution, there's no reason music would be censored. There would, however, be a drastic change in music in response to the change of the mode of production from capialism to socialism.

What does opposing or advocating censorship have to do with socialism?

Fuck, I hope not.

In my view, no one would "make millions of dollars off of music" in a Socialist society,
because actors, musicians, and athletes would be paid some specific wage as being entertainers.

Nobody is getting paid a wage in socialism.

To be honest, I wouldn't really see the point.

we could do without white-power oi imo

Seeing as how much music is pirated right now, I think the bolded sums up my issues with censorship.

EDIT: And it runs the danger of setting up a black "market" which undermines the whole non-market thing.

That'd be up to you, pal.

There is so much that just can't be known about what life and culture and society would be like after a working class revolution that was able to establish new social relations and new cooperative and democratic ways of doing things. But in this case the answer seems simple to me: NO.

Censorship comes out of the need of ruling classes to control or enforce their values and preferences, or ones they want the general population to adopt because it helps bolster that class rule. This can be direct or indirect, soft or hard censorship, but in general this is where I think it comes from. So censorship of pornography, for example, is a moralistic bourgeois attempt to sanitize an "sharp edge" that developed as a consequence of market logic. Sexual exploitation comes out of the way the system turns everything and anything into a commodity. Victorians or Evangelical Christians today can't argue that capitalism is virtuous unless the commodification of sex (prostitution or the porn industry) to the point where it can actually be stolen (rape, forced prostitution) is seen in society at large as a consequence of moral failings, rather than a natural consequence of profits, inequality, poverty, and so on.

Other times it's more direct such as political censorship. Obviously a ruling class that feels somewhat insecure or that their rule is not 110% solid, does not want seditious materials gaining traction. So this is directly a ruling class - usually using the state - that's enforcing it's viewpoints (threats to our rule are not good!) onto society.

So, right after a revolution, workers may need to directly censor things that are a direct threat to the new proletarian society. Since workers would be a majority and their "values" would be directed towards preserving an order that doesn't need to exploit others, I think this form of censorship would be democratically agreed on, transparent and unambiguous. I think in a post-revolutionary situation, this "censorship" would be as "commonsensical" as it would be for people after the Hatian Revolution voting to ban pro-slavery pamphlets.

So if there were white-power songs, or explicitly counter-revolutionary posters or symbols then it would be the content which would be restricted, not the form. There is no reason to ban music, there is no such thing as inherently reactionary notes or melodies. There are melodies which have taken on reactionary connotations and symbolic meaning, but again it's not the music that's the issue it's the particular message being conveyed.

So if there was a counter-revolutionary movement that was engaging in antisemitic attacks and using Wagner songs, then maybe workers would decide that these songs shouldn't be played in public because it will terrorize people and embolden counter-revolutionaries. But if there was no anti-semetic movement using these songs in a symbolic manner, then there'd be no reason to ban Wagner music even though he was a reactionary and anti-semite as a person.

My personal opinion is that workers would want to stay away from banning anything that wasn't explicit because we wouldn't want to spend the resources on censorship and would only deal with it when it became an obvious issue with real potential ramifications like neo-nazi posters going up or pamphlets trying to organize counter-revolutionary terror or whatnot. I think workers should stay away from seeking coded or implicitly reactionary messages in things and I don't think there'd be much incentive for that given that worker's power has been fully established. But there's no way to know for sure how people would handle this, so this is just my speculation.

Eventually even this transparent and democratically agreed upon censorship wouldn't even be necessary. With class differences eliminated then it would be possible to have a kind of universal human common-sesne where there is only personal preference.

I don't see the point in censoring music but i agree with you, nobody should make millions of music or even sports

I think you mean Communism.

No, communism is the classless society. There is still classes in socialism (remember that socialism is the stage in which classes are being eliminated).

The dictatorship of the proletariat is the stage in which classes are being eliminated. Communism and socialism refer to the same stage of society.

Lenin's a revisionist.

Yup

wat

I hate how Caj gets us quibbling over semantics. Socialism or the Dictatorship of the Proletariat. Who gives a shit? We all know what each other means. Different people and different tendencies traditionally use a different one of these two words to describe the same stage in societal development.

Actually, it was TheGodlessUtopian who started quibbling over semantics, but whatever.

Because it's
1) wrong
2) confusing

Assuming by 'Socialist State' you mean it by the contradictory terms; then no. I don't think any Comrade here support censorship.

The DotP is socialism with said socialism being the "lower phase of communism."

It is hardly semantics, but whatever, what Vyacheslav Brolotov said in regards to tendencies.

The confounding of the lower phase of communism with the dictatorship of the proletariat is just absurd. It shows that one clearly hasn't read the Critique of the Gotha Programme.

It is what it always has been referred to as, as much as I have been aware. Far from absurd.

I will get around to re-reading said programme again later,last time I read it was when I was first learning, but I can't say I have much desire to argue such a topic with you.

It would look the same as now,
you will have two options buy original cd's go to their concerts,buy their t-shirts,....
or you can download them from online site.

And pirate music is an good think,it helps the artist to expend global

You download some albums,and you like them,so you are going by a music store and you see their cds so you say wow cool of monstreal new album im going to buy them,...

Also musicians must not play for money they should be happy to make music and bring happines to each other

An perfect example were The Grateful Dead their concerts were cheap very cheap,you can make pirate copies,at their concerts,.... grateful dead were the best


Im going to miss you Jerry Garcia

I would hope not...but who knows..'states' always have some rules and ideas about what is and is not acceptable when it comes to any kind of art-form..whatever form a 'socialist state' takes will no doubt have it's notions about what is and isn't ok

If a state censors music...

If a state fears creative people...

If a state is so fearful that it might be torn apart by someone singing a song, and can conceive no other response than to silence the singer...

Then that is not a socialist state.

I think you don't know what you think you mean.

It matters because if you equate the lowest stage of communism with the DotP then you're basically a reformist. Marx and Engels never used the terms in a different way.

I agree, it's hardly semantics. What's important is the issue of class and revolution which the equation of the DotP with the lowest stage of socialism obfuscates.

There's a problem with your first statement; socialism has meant different things at different times and most of that time, it's meant a utopianist socialism, that chapter in the manifesto that's sadly overlooked. And it was called that for a reason. So it hasn't always meant what it's meant.

I love how we have gone from Censorship to the Dictatorship of the Proletariat. I might as well just ask something here anyway. As Engels said, the Commune De Paris was the Dictatorship of the Proletariat. And Marx says that the Commune De Paris "Wasn't Socialist nor could it be." So I am a little confused here

You are such a fucking dumbass that it hurts.

Yeah, because if you don't call something exactly what Marx and Engels called it, but you still advocate the same revolutionary path to it, you are a reformist. You make absolutely no fucking sense.

lol if you advocate just a reform from capitalism to socialism then you're a reformist.

Where the fuck did I ever say that, you piece of shit? I clearly said, and I quote, "REVOLUTIONARY PATH." I never advocated a reformist path from capitalism to socialism, stupid. That is literally impossible, and I acknowledge that.

Lead me through your conception of revolution then.

And please, conduct yourself in civil discourse. I could go on all day how you're the fucking idiot piece of shit who's never read anything.

Something to add to that, if anyone ever finds themselves thinking "Hmm.. We could sure use some censorship right now.", I can pretty much guarantee you that sort of thought wouldn't be based on any perceived merits of censorship, but on a deep flaw somewhere else in society.

"The spiritual development of Germany has gone forward not owing to, but in spite of, the censorship."
--Marx regarding the press, but the same idea applies here.