Art and planning

How exactly would commissioning artwork etc. work in a Cockshot-style economy? Commissions aren't traditionally plan-able because they take differing amounts of time depending on the exact piece and aren't necessary requested all the time. And labor vouchers are explicitly non-transferable, so you can't compensate the artist directly.

Other urls found in this thread:

East euro here, during USSR times, Moscow generously subsidized local arts, poetry, literature, movie industry etc. to the point where in our entire 90's, we had almost no arts to be made in our entire country anymore, and even these days, we can't match the levels of art production that existed from 60's to 80's. And it was not shit arts or movies either, it was some of my country's classics.

I don't imply that USSR was a good place live under, I don't really know since I was born in 93 but just saying based on what I've read and heard in my country.

Read conquest of bread. Kropotkin spends a lot of time on this. He argues that everybody should work, but because work can be planned out more efficiently, people would work less and have more free time. This is only furthered by greater advances in automation. That free time could then be spent in the pursuit of art and science, in a completely voluntary manner.
I think may need to be updated though, as science has advance to the point that it can't really be pursued as a hobby. To time consuming and esoteric

That's pretty crazy and oppressive already.

Other than that, time is just one factor out of many. For something like a movie you need much more than just time and having the state to plan what movies will be made is bullshit.

how is it more bullshit than hollywood porkies doing it? it's not like anyone will interfere if you want to make an indie movie in your free time.

Literature, movie making, great tradition of avantguarde painters – all of these went down the toilet with our regime change. Today we try to imitate Hollywood, the quality of translations (subtitles, dubs, books) are RIDICULOUSLY BAD, every arts went in full pomo mode.

People stopped reading completely. I recently watched a news coverage from the 70's: people spoke our native language much much fluently and ornately.

I just don't see how a "free market" model can provide for a country's cultural needs.

What about full time painters, poets, etc.? You are avoiding the crux of the matter.

Because it gives the people who are successful the chance to do something according to their liking. As long your shit sells, you have all the creative freedom.

Where the fuck would you get the equipment, crew and actors?

Ah, yes, unemployment isn't a cancerous social pathology, but the supreme good. Manual labor should be done away with by those uneducated manual laborers themselves while I sip my neet cocktails at home!

That's why it didn't happen like that (except with propaganda pieces commissioned by the cultural department). Young artists were given a budget by the state and enjoyed relative autonomy. Today we have market planning: movies are made based on profitability. A young Orson Welles or Alfred Hitchcock wouldn't get an opportunity in today's Hollywood because they'd deem him a risky investment (that is: a proper artist), so instead we get Transformers 9!

I don't think it's an overstatement: the best works in cinema were produced in the cold war, in the soviet bloc.

Look at Tarkovsky's Stalker, Makk's Love, Švankmajer's oeuvre – these portray a degree of artistic freedom, finesse, creativity and innovation that was unimaginable in the West.

Look up "Agit-train" – the soviets brought cinema to illiterate peasants during the civil war on trains! How incredibly progressive is that for the time? Look up soviet musicians, composers, poets, etc.

You are dreaming. That's not how the Hollywood model works. Big execs and market researchers modify your work to make it more profitable. If your ideas don't poll well with test consumers you don't even get the chance.

You live in "FREEDUMB" la-la land.



Its free and only the art matters. Not the money.

Not at all, that's the job for our robot overlords. Though I bet some people will still want to do manual labour, and all the power to them.

Oww, now that'll start a completely different discussion. And you picked some of the exceptional examples. The average movie blew more dick than the average Hollywood flick. Besides, surely you don't want to argue that Hollywood didn't give us some great movies?

There are more movies than sequels and young filmmakers still get a chance. You generally seem to ignore that most of the shit that comes and came out tends to be, well shit. Only the decent stuff survives time. How many of Hitchcock contemporaries do you remember?

If you are a director for one of their products. A successful filmmaker decides about that shit himself. Nolan is probably the most obvious example. He had to do some comic trash to get the trust but this allowed him to do bigger personal projects that were financed by the studios. With his name the ideas don't matter as much since people will flood in either way.

Britbong here, I've noticed the same thing. Oratory has disappeared.

Planned by whomst'd?

You are speaking in fictions. Leftypol is not the right place for you. You might think that you are edgy or a trans-humanist or whatever. Meanwhile we cringe at your lack of grasp on reality.

Sorry, masta.


Wow, you totally BTFO me. Oh wait! Except since "success" is measured in profits that director already has to make something trashy enough to be consumable portraying his mediocrity, so when he gets "full control" he just does the same uncreative shit!

Lel, the reactionary batman guy.

I've been thinking about it this for months now. Classical agitation (going to the site, shouting your lungs out for and at the workers) completely disappeared. It's like we can't express ourselves anymore in non-twitter form…

The myth that the "free market" (a propaganda term par excellence) isn't planned must die.

The technology to automate away most jobs is already here. Most hurdles are either legal or political.

Great argument, comrade.

Come on. He proved his skill to appeal to people and got rewarded for it, by what definition isn't it "success"? Afterwards he deserved the trust to do whatever the fuck he wanted and got the funds for it. What soviet director got the equivalent of 200+ millions of jew gold to put his vision on screen?

His politics are irrelevant for the topic.

What you don't seem to get is that capitalism doesn't work the way you believe it does. (pic related) (series related: )


Let's break down what you are saying here. Implicit is that the market actually rewards talent. This is a myth. Let's move on the the "skill" part: movie-makers don't get approved or disapproved based on their new, creative, imaginative forms but by the promise of profit. Which leads us to this: you STILL believe (in 2021 anno domini) that the market-form actually commends artistic creation. How deep does your head go down the sand, you ostrich?

And apparently made a movie about countering Occupy Wall Street! Wow! Such ingenuity! Such courage!

I am not the one who equates (this theological notion of) "success" with profits, but you.

Oh, but you already said that you are an expert on soviet-bloc kino!!!! So where is your actual example, your actual comparison? Wut? You are pulling shit out of your arse?! No way! I though you were someone who had the knowledge I can trust!!!


That's not true though. Pretty much every great film out there is usually released in a butchered version and you have to wait for a "Director's Cut" to experience the film as it was intended by the author.

Nolan's films are trash, they're like a normie's idea of what an "intelligent" film is. Lowest common denominator garbage.


Oh the ironing.

Yet talented people make money left and right. Unless of course, you want some arbitrary definition of talent.

All the shit should still be enjoyable for someone else, otherwise you're making art for yourself and a medium focused on communication is suboptimal for that. The profit part simply confirms that your ideas have appeal to others.

Wouldn't say commend but it definitely allows it. As you noted it's not the main goal. By being good aka. making money you gain it yourself.

Which was his choice and muh creative freedom you're talking about.

How did you get the idea? I know some movies and some directors. Oh, and I don't recall one with the freedoms to attack the rulers. Care to name some?

Hey, you're the fan of soviet-movies here. I am just the guy who saw some. So what film maker got nearly as much cash to do whatever the fuck he wanted?

Most of the shit turned correct. Only the work hours and home ownership turned painfully wrong but given how cucked UK is by porkie, it was hardly unexpected. Also let's not forget the biggest economic crash ever, so if anything, things turned out pretty well.

That's quite a claim.

That's like your opinion and misses the point. Nolan is free to pursue his artistic vision after proving himself. Whether his ideas are good or not is up to the people to decide, and clearly enough love the shit.

Again: "talent" goes down the drain. What the status quo accepts as an ersatz for talent is profitability. Stop lying, you asshole.

There are no objective rules in the universe that says that "X is enjoyable" and "Y isn't enjoyable", you complete retard. You are missing what Marxists call dialectical development: people wouldn't pay moneys ("enjoy") product "A" if they weren't already included in process "B".

Another point where you are not only missing pre/post-capitalist relations but what makes us human altogether. People don't enjoy in an "abstract fashion": we enjoy what we were already taught to enjoy. How is this controversial? How do you think that your arbitrary category of "should be enjoyed" can survive after this basic revelation?

Too bad that "profit" is not an "objective meter" of our social relations, our social "weight". Profit is profit: a mode to count the amount at which the worker has been expropriated and hhow much the arbitrary "market" acknowledges this process. You are living in a la-la land of market forces wherein what happens transforms from direct to indirect: you think that non-personal forces rule our economy!

In the aforementioned bounds, meaning ultimately profitability: if Transformers 7 is more profitable than Hitchcock's Psycho than there is no question which movie gets pushed under the capitalist system.

Come back to me, you ideologically lost faggot when you've watched Tarkovsky's Stalker, Makk's Love, Švankmajer's oeuvre, etc. and you compared them to Hollywood's "products."

Again, why do you think that the "worth of" artistic creations must be expressed in moneys? You are completely class-cucked, let's make this straight.

KEK, muh 15 weeks holiday!!!!
proof that he is trolling…

Except he's contractually strained to make movies against OWS.

He hasn't dealt with that at all.

My guess: People could make little things individually in their spare time, then hope to get a cultural prize for it by some sort of juries (which may or may not involve an income bonus, though I tend towards no bonus or that coming with strings attached, so you can only use it to obtain things useful for creating); bigger projects would be funded by some sort of ministry and people who have won cultural prizes for their own one-person projects could apply for funding. I think it makes sense to have not only generic juries trying to represent the entire population, but also regional juries and juries for different age groups. Most juries should be drawn by lot from these populations, a few expert juries drawn from people with experience who got approval for their craft by such a non-expert jury. Prizes and funding should work in a proportional way, so that majority opinion and taste steer the majority of it, but not all. For voting procedures fitting for that, see: and

So, most simple example, suppose a jury hands out some gold and silver prize using approval-style ballots. The gold prize goes to the project approved by the biggest group. Then, the silver prize doesn't simply go to the project getting the second-highest amount of approval marks. Those approving the project that got gold already had some influence, so we now give more room for people who didn't have a say yet. When deciding who gets the silver prize, an approval mark from a ballot approving the project that got gold is only worth half as much as an approval mark from a ballot that didn't do that.

is shit:

This is as much as missing the main point as with

The prole state must create means by which programmers, artists, etc. can continue to create socially necessary work (be them games, artsy fartsies, etc.).

What kind of psychotic are you, tbh? The state should create platforms onto which actual programmers, artists, etc. can join. ALSO: unions of artists/programmers should be propagated so that the state appointed shit can be countered from the "down up"…

Are you familiar with the concept of dual power at all??

What follows is your explanation of "lotto." Well, good job, little idiot! The masses will have nothing with your specific kind of centralization.

how stupid do you have to be to acknowledge the "way are things done right now" and believe that it's the future of communism?

Artist here. I'm happy to make art for people for free if their request is a good one, they ask politely, my living expenses are all taken care of, and I am provided with all the necessary tools and work space to do the work for free.

The latter two things are provided under communism. The two prior conditions are just a matter of the individual and circumstance.

>The state should create platforms onto which actual programmers, artists, etc. can join.
As opposed to fake ones? Is one an actual artist if one doesn't do it for money?
Are you ok?

I write articles and stuff for free, so if that counts, I am an artist as well. Of course, I need income to live and I need time to write, but aside from that, paying me anything doesn't really motivate me to deliver quality. I'm glad that I do something else to make a living, so that I can follow my conscience in what I say. If I had more free time, I would turn things into novels that just grow like tumors inside me.

fuck off you fucking faggot, of course USSR was an amazing place to live, better than this neoliberal garbage i live in.
Oh and soviet cinema was the best i have ever seen in my life, almost every decade has a shit ton of god tier films…i've seen it all. I love it, i'm addicted to soviet cinema.

That's irrelevant tho. I'm asking how would that be planned in an anarchist society.