Hello

Where did it work mainly like that? In northern Europe people generally owned their smallholdings.

Maybe it is fucking ridiculous because it is a giant strawman you constructed so it would look ridiculous. The point made was that people do and will spend time on arts and sciences out of their free volition, not just if forced by profit motive. Self-application and self-actualisation are very strong motivators in humans.
youtube.com/watch?v=u6XAPnuFjJc

There are non-stalinist strains of socialism, and gulags weren't a feature of even the Soviet Union outside of the stalinist period. I think you are being either intentionally insufferable or just plain ignorant but I'm giving you the benefit of the doubt here.

Quite. This would make you a petit-bourgeois. You still have to limit your creative and industrious output to the profit motive. Can't make that which is useful or beautiful if it doesn't sell for whatever reason.

Digitised art is infinitely replicable and trivial to spread. For larger projects, well, one of the reasons I lean marketsoc is that things that are subjective in nature such as the arts would be easier to regulate and prioritise using some market- or pseudo-market mechanisms.

I know you're shitposting but that's about as good as it is now. I'm hoping for something a little better.

Well now that we have the internet this is really a non-problem.
I assume the workers of movie theatres. Though again we have internet so that's not really a problem either.
I don't think full time. But I think it would be realistic if you could make it known that you wouldn't be available for socially necessary labour at a given time because you're doing something related to your art. Like if you're shooting a movie somewhere else, or if you play music and you're touring.

This is a more complicated question. In the USSR the government would fund movies so I suppose that's something but I suppose here is where being proven would be important. Like obviously the government couldn't fund every movie anyone wanted to make, so maybe it would be a matter of already having a portfolio of independent films to prove you're serious and know what you're doing.

Every single one
You have share in the ownership of cinema so you'll get to pick alongside others.

AFAIK Scandinavia never had true serfdom. Feudalism there was somewhat different to most of Europe.

that is actually true now that I think of it, low population density meant that the cost of labour stayed high and as such even farmers stayed relatively free.

Redpill me on marksoc.

And digital is just a little better than it sitting in a pile in some province somewhere. Self-published books on the internet, and I feel like a jerk saying this, are mostly just noise, complete garbage. More people having the means to create art, which we do have now to some extent thanks to modern technology, will just make the good stuff harder to find.

I mean it's great that more people would have time to creatively express themselves but the sad fact is that even in a group of people creating art only like 1/100 actually has any real talent or anything worth saying and those people should be promoted I feel like.

See I knew you guys would bring up digitised art so I should have addressed that in my original post maybe. Refer to the above response on that though.

And I know that me personally enjoying physical copies of books and music is probably just a waste of resources but I guess I'll ask anyways if that should be possible.

I'm aware of how movie making worked in the USSR. And I think it actually worked better over there than the west in some ways. As long as you could prove yourself with short films or participate in some kind of young film makers program that would work I guess.

And come on man. The nationally beloved genius artist in his 50s who spends all day creating doesn't have to bother shoveling shit for a few hours.

Socialism, as a radical departure from the current state of things, I think would inherently mean moving beyond some of the things we have now (even if we might enjoy them) for more efficient alternatives. And I think physical media would be one of those things, as much as some people like having physical collections of books or records or such I don't think they're an industry that's really justifiable in a socialist system. We already have the technology to replicate and share infinite amounts of art for free, physical mediums are just a waste when you have that. It would be like keeping cars around even if we had flawless and universally available teleportation.

I realize that right now self-published books are almost universally terrible but this is because actually good authors and poets tend to get scooped up by publishing companies so have no reason to stick to self-publishing when the alternative is vastly more economically lucrative. I don't think this is really true for music however, I think there's a thriving community of self-produced musicians on the internet that make great content for basically nothing. Of course it can be hard to find but once again I think this is down to it being a radical departure from traditional forms of publishing. It's a matter of things being different that takes some getting used to, finding quality art online is very much a matter of word of mouth and algorithms. After a while it's much like online news-broadcasting, eventually you construct your own insulted little bubble where anything you find is more likely than not going to be something you enjoy. Even though it is top-porky this is something I think youtube has down to a T.

Really in socialism I don't think anyone should have to work over the age of 50 but let's just pretend he's not in his 50s, he's in his 40s. Why doesn't he? As universally acclaimed as his art is he's still just a normal guy in society like you or me. We all have to work together to keep the lights on and ensure that this society we have where everyone has the time to pursue their own interests and can become great artists like that stays together.

For a starter, read Cockshott's Towards A New Socialism, it's about planned economies but utilises some market mechanisms. I'm not well-read on theory to really formulate a system yet, but the basis of my reasoning is that if socialist and capitalist states or statelike entities are to coexist, the capitalist states are likely to hold some resource the socialist states cannot produce, say a rare earth, or simply that some thing is way easier to produce in a certain location for example. Thus one would have to have something to trade the capitalists with, and commodity production would have to go on.
Also there are qualitative and quantitative goods/produces, and the more quantitative something is the easier it is to generalise for everyone. For example, electricity simply is, there is no good/bad electricity. Arts on the other hand seem to be quite subjective and matters of personal taste. More subjective goods would be under market mechanisms while objective goods would be planned. For mixed cases such as clothes, there would be a guaranteed quota of basic, general product as well as support and incentives for either asking someone to make or design personal clothes or even better, have people make or customise their own clothes, should people want to maximise their self-expression.

More space for separate and disparate tastes to form. Do you think people wouldn't talk about the arts they find interesting or worthy to oneother and on a societal level? Reviews and the like would hardly simply disappear.

Maybe some kind of an online marketplace where people put their arts for people to enjoy, and should enough people wish to subsidise someone's art they could do it full-time. Or rather, make the time they spend making art into socially necessary. I'm not sure if this is good, however, as it might lead to a new round of commodification.

Probably. Most leftists are so caught up in ideology that they don't realize how much they needlessly fetishize workers and capital. Communism ought to be an actually new mode of production free from capitalism's problems (i.e. ecological destruction and the hell of the factory), not just proletarian management of existing infrastructure. Read Camatte.