I'm a financially stable writer. I write books, I sell them, with the money I get I live a frugal life and write even more. Now, for the past 5 years of my life I thought I had figured out my working life, but the more politically conscious I became, the more I became confused about what praxis should look like for an artist.
First of all, intellectual rights: should I just give them up? They make absolutely no sense in a socialist context, yet without them, I'll become basically homeless. And what about the subject? Should every piece of Art inspire revolutionary sentiments? Another thing that has always puzzled me is the treatment of one's own art. Let's say that a composer wants to write truly sophisticated music, so he decides to employ either musical tools he has invented, or other tools that are still considered contemporary. In doing so, he produces something that musically trained people can see as a masterpiece, while also alienating all those listeners who never bothered to spend 2 decades studying music. Is this sort of aesthetic formalism directly at odds with socialist ideologies?
Intellectual rights are basically worthless now for anyone except megacorps with the limitless supplies of dosh to disrupt the digital venues that distribute such "property."
Lukacs talks about the difference between bourgeois art and proletarian or revolutionary art. If I remember right bourgeois art just accepts the state of things or ignores the social and material conditions of society. I don't think that really covers it entirely, but I don't have the text at hand. I'll try to find it when I get a second.
I think what he means is something like, say, a Pokemon, where you basically have magic creatures, but you still have a clearly Capitalist society at work. This isn't commented on it examined, it's just accepted as being the natural state of things. You can see this in things like Mass Effect as well. Even though people are living in a future of astonishing technological development, there's still capitalism.
So in short, no, everything doesn't need to be expressly "proletarian" or "revolutionary." There are however bourgeois tendencies and currents in fiction the use of which should be discouraged. I'm not certain what you mean by "alienation." In the Marxist sense, alienation is what happens when your work separates you from the product and the world around you (in short anyway, I'm sure someone can offer a more complete explanation). If you mean the feeling of discouragement or some other negative reaction experienced by a listener, their emotions aren't your problem.
Although in socialism, such a conductor wouldn't "hire" musicians but seek other individuals interested in working/collaborating with him.
HTH. Please offer corrections where I'm in error.
Lucas Davis
In the context of capitalism, no. That's just peak lifestylism. If you want to make a living without being a wage slave then you need some form of property, either MoP or something you can rent (and intellectual property is essentially rent). In a society where class, money, and private property are abolished (socialism), then you obviously can't do that, but then again you won't have much need to.
This man is a socdem, and he proposes a special social security for artists, basically when you get money (performing a play, selling your books…) you contribute to a fund and if you're down and out, you get welfare from that fund.
The goal is to make artists less dependant on big companies and encourage self-publishing and a culture industry that is less capitalistic.
David Carter
Please, please, tell me how. This is my dream.
Thomas King
Gonna go ahead and say no.
I also don't agree with intellectual property being totally incompatible with socialism - I know, that's probably unorthodox as fuck. But there are already multiple ways of treating intellectual property legally as is. Anyway, I think restrictions on IP in a socialist economy would probably be looser (and profiteering from mass-patent bullshit would obviously be eliminated), but if you wanted to write a book and sell it and have the rights to doing that, I don't see why you couldn't.
That said, you don't live in a socialist economy. So I'd simply advise, as someone also in the arts (go fucking figure) that you be kind. You make a product and sell it - that's what you do. Don't be an asshole about it. If all you're doing is writing enough to make a living, I doubt that you are exemplary of the problems with IP anyway.
Julian Hall
Are you self-published or not ? My advice would be to just tolerate piracy, and distribute things that will never sell or won't anymore under a Creative Commons license, or something similar. But is right.
What are you smoking ? Of course, not. Does every piece of music you appreciate inspire revolutionary sentiments in you ? No, they don't (and if they do, stop LARPing and listen to more different genres) There is more to human life than the organization of labour and the question of the legitimacy of the state.
First of all, There are a lot of left-wing composers and musicians who were both socialists and more or less avant-garde and didn't seek to appeal to common people, like Cornelius Cardew, Luigi Nono, Henry Cow, Frederic Rzewski, The Pop Group, Robert Wyatt… And I think (a libertarian kind of) socialism could give more opportunities for artists to do niche things like this, as the imperative to make profit out of cultural products would disappear, and grant them more freedom in the process. Anyway, no, you don't have to indulge in populism to be a socialist artist…
Hudson Robinson
Also, this is inaccurate for reasons that should be apparent to you, OP. It's partially true, but not wholly true with regards to the societal standards under which you are operating.
Nicholas Long
This shows a true lack of understanding in Communism or Anarchism. I know it's a meme, but you should read more. A lot of questions get answered by "read more" because a lot of the answers requires an entire explanation of Communism.
What you ask at the end seems like you may just be thinking too much. If you want to make music, make music. That's sort of just it. There isn't really any need to think about it as deeply.
Anyways, i'll try to paint a portrait of how it would work. In a Communist society we are assuming that resources are actually being used efficiently. You would probably work one day a week doing something productive, and the rest of the time you have is free time to do what you want. I'm talking 8 hours a week or less to do something useful. This could be farming, electric work, whatever. There won't be any intellectual rights considering there isn't money. Just write what you want, if you ACTUALLY like writing, then you would continue to do so without money. Saying that you would become homeless shows you don't really know about Communism or Anarchism. I suggest you read
"ABC's of Anarchism" By Berkman
"Anarchy" By Malatesta
"The Conquest of Bread" by Kropotkin
Reading through these comments, it seems apparent that a lot of these people aren't Communists or Anarchists either. I don't mean to be an asshole, but it's true.
And yes, the goal of Communism and Anarchy are the same. The society would likely operate very similarly. This is why I include both ideologies. and "State and Revolution" by Lenin
Evan Wright
Lol exactly what I was thinking. Are these guys Communists? 🤔
Levi Phillips
>I also don't agree with private intellectual property rights being totally incompatible with the abolition of private property
Christian Phillips
Also, right now, if this is what you're asking, then you need intellectual rights. We don't live in a Communist society yet
Benjamin Edwards
sorry for the autism
Ryder Harris
Stop being a lifestylist. You live under capitalist, act accordingly. Your personal life is not relevant to its overthrow.
Josiah Evans
I'd say you could keep in mind some of the suggestions here while ignoring the ridiculous accusations of lifestylism for the biggest part. Writing could be done normally: put your books up for sale. At some point they'll get pirated, but that doesn't mean nobody will buy them anymore. But I'm a brainlet when it comes to aesthetics, sorry.
Anthony Ramirez
this is interesting, but what would the conditions be for one to become and stay a beneficiary? how much work would you have to produce or, if you're just starting out, how would you gain access to it? would you have to be part of an artisan's guild of sorts?
Brayden Mitchell
Those that will suck more cock of the political party in power will receive money for their "art", even if that art is shit.
Jose Cruz
Except other forms of private property tend to use up resources. If I own seven empty houses, or factories in which I don't work, is that really the same as owning the content of some book I wrote? I understand that the mechanism is what we're defining its classification on, but I don't think the economic and social implications of owning an idea are entirely the same as owning real estate.
But then again, I'm more of a Georgist, so my fixation likely does mesh better with my belief system than with socialism.
