Ask a Red, Second Edition

Status
Not open for further replies.
As an aspiring writer and average-skilled artist, a thought occurred to me:

What does Communism/Socialism propose in regards to creative careers?

Sure, the run of the mill business is exploitative, but who does the creative individual owe their profit to apart from their own personal creativity? One can say bosses aren't needed for business, but for writing and artwork to exist, there MUST be creativity, which inarguably comes from the individual.

If I was to publish a book, how would the profit be split up? Would the majority go to the publishing firm due to all the workers being in it? Or would I get the lion's share since the work originated with me entirely, and they're merely spreading it?

If that book was made into a movie, how would profit be split up? Again, would it go to the company producing/filming/etc. since they're making it and the bulk of workers are there, or would I get the largest share since, again, I created it and they're merely disseminating it?
 
What does Communism/Socialism propose in regards to creative careers?
I know a couple artists in the Soviet Union (Eisenstein comes to mind) thought that Communism would free them from financial constraints. Don't know how much that helps.
 
As an aspiring writer and average-skilled artist, a thought occurred to me:

What does Communism/Socialism propose in regards to creative careers?

Sure, the run of the mill business is exploitative, but who does the creative individual owe their profit to apart from their own personal creativity? One can say bosses aren't needed for business, but for writing and artwork to exist, there MUST be creativity, which inarguably comes from the individual.

If I was to publish a book, how would the profit be split up? Would the majority go to the publishing firm due to all the workers being in it? Or would I get the lion's share since the work originated with me entirely, and they're merely spreading it?

If that book was made into a movie, how would profit be split up? Again, would it go to the company producing/filming/etc. since they're making it and the bulk of workers are there, or would I get the largest share since, again, I created it and they're merely disseminating it?
Presumably the creative individual and the other workers involved in the process of production would decide between themselves, attempting to establish a distribution of wealth proportional to relative contribution. Do remember, the creative process is not the only form of productive endeavour which allows you to obtain such products: manufacture and distribution, whatever form they may take, are also necessary. The book does not arrive on the shelf by the writers hands alone, and less so the film adaptation in the cinema! Every worker who contributed to the process of production that lead to that end has a rightful share in the proceeds of that process, of whatever value.

Do remember, socialism does not propose that profits be simply divide exactly evenly, but that the distribution of revenue be organised democratically. Some workers genuinely contribute more than others, whether because they work more or because their work is more valuable, and distribution of resources should reflect that. After all, what you are asking is not a question peculiar to socialism- you could just as easily ask the same of capitalism, exchanging "capitalist" for "worker". It's an inevitable question that emerges when any two "work units", you might call them, involve themselves in an exchange.

Perhaps Oscar Wilde's essay The Soul of Man Under Socialism may be of interest. It discusses socialism in regards to individual and creative expression, something of particular interest to Wilde, and, although I wouldn't claim it as universally representative of socialist thought, it's a powerful and worthwhile piece.
 
Why do socialists hate Religion?
They honestly do not. In fact, many socialist have been devoutly religious, seeing their faith as the inspiration for their political views- our good friend Cheezy the Whiz is just one such individual. In Britain, in particular, socialism has long been associated with non-conforming Protestant Churches (that is to say, non-Anglican churches), such as the famous Scottish politician and trade unionist Keir Hardie, who expressed his Christian Socialism thus:

Keir Hardie said:
We are called upon at the beginning of the 20th century to decide the question propounded in the Sermon on the Mount, as to whether we will worship God or Mammon. The present day is a Mammon worshipping age. Socialism proposes to dethrone the brute god Mammon and to lift humanity into its place.
 
They honestly do not. In fact, many socialist have been devoutly religious, seeing their faith as the inspiration for their political views- our good friend Cheezy the Whiz is just one such individual. In Britain, in particular, socialism has long been associated with non-conforming Protestant Churches (that is to say, non-Anglican churches), such as the famous Scottish politician and trade unionist Keir Hardie, who expressed his Christian Socialism thus:
In the beginning of Time, the great Creator Reason, made the Earth to be a Common Treasury, to preserve Beasts, Birds, Fishes, and Man, the lord that was to govern this Creation; for Man had Domination given to him, over the Beasts, Birds, and Fishes; but not one word was spoken in the beginning, That one branch of mankind should rule over another.

And the Reason is this, Every single man, Male and Female, is a perfect Creature of himself; and the same Spirit that made the Globe, dwels in man to govern the Globe; so that the flesh of man being subject to Reason, his Maker, hath him to be his Teacher and Ruler within himself, therefore needs not run abroad after any Teacher and Ruler without him, for he needs not that any man should teach him, for the same Anoynting that ruled in the Son of man, teacheth him all things.

But since humane flesh (that king of Beasts) began to delight himself in the objects of the Creation, more then in the Spirit Reason and Righteosness, who manifests himself to be the indweller in the Five Sences, of Hearing, Seeing, Tasting, Smelling, Feeling; then he fell into blindness of mind and weakness of heart, and runs abroad for a Teacher and Ruler: And so selfish imaginations taking possession of the Five Sences, and ruling as King in the room of Reason therein, and working with Covetousnesse, did set up one man to teach and rule over another; and thereby the Spirit was killed, and man was brought into bondage, and became a greater Slave to such of his own kind, then the Beasts of the field were to him.

And hereupon, The Earth (which was made to be a Common Treasury of relief for all, both Beasts and Men) was hedged in to In-closures by the teachers and rulers, and the others were made Servants and Slaves: And that Earth that is within this Creation made a Common Store-house for all, is bought and sold, and kept in the hands of a few, whereby the great Creator is mightily dishonoured, as if he were a respector of persons, delighting int he comfortable Livelihoods of some, and rejoycing in the miserable povertie and straits of others. From the beginning it was not so.

But this coming in of Bondage, is called "A-dam", because this ruling and teaching power without, doth "dam" up the Spirit of Peace and Liberty; First within the heart, by filling it with slavish fears of others. Secondly without, by giving the bodies of one to be imprisoned, punished and oppressed by the outward power of another. And this evil was brought upon us through his own Covetousnesse, whereby he is blinded and made weak, and sees not the Law of Righteousnesse in his heart, which is the pure light of Reason, but looks abroad for it, and thereby the Creation is cast under bondage and curse, and the creator is sleighted; First by the Teachers and Rulers that sets themselves down in the Spirits room, to teach and rule, where he himself is only King. Secondly by the other, that refuses the Spirit, to be taught and governed by fellow Creatures, and this was called Israels Sin, in casting off the Lord and chusing Saul, one like themselves to be their King, when as they had the same Spirit of Reason and government in themselves, as he had, if they were but subject. And Israels rejecting of outward teachers and rulers to embrace the Lord, and to be all taught and ruled by that righteous King, that Jeremiah Prophesied shall rule in the new Heavens and new Earth in the latter dayes, will be their Restauration from bondage, Jer. 23.5, 6.

But for the present state of the old World that is running up like parchment in the fire, and wearing away, we see proud Imaginary flesh, which is the wise Serpent, rises up in flesh and gets dominion in some to rule over others, and so forces one part of the Creation man, to be a slave to another; and thereby the Spirit is killed in both. The one looks upon himself as a teacher and ruler, and so is lifted up in pride over his fellow Creature: The other looks upon himself as imperfect, and so is dejected in his spirit, and looks upon his fellow Creature of his own Image, as a Lord above him.

And thus Esau, the man of flesh, which is Covetousness and Pride, hath killed Jacob, the Spirit of meeknesse, and righteous government in the light of Reason, and rules over him: And so the Earth that was made a common Treasury for all to live comfortably upon, is become through mans unrighteous actions one over another, to be a place, wherein one torments another.

Now the great Creator, who is the Spirit Reason, suffered himself thus to be rejected, and troden underfoot by the covetous proud flesh, for a certain time limited; therefore saith he, The Seed out of whom the Creation did proceed, which is my Self, shall bruise this Serpents head, and restore my Creation again from this curse and bondage; and when I the King of Righteousnesse raigns in every man, I will be the blessing of the Earth and the joy of all Nations.

And since the coming in of the stoppage, or the A-dam the Earth hath been inclosed and given to the Elder brother Esau, or man of flesh, and hath been bought and sold from one to another; and Jacob, or the younger brother, that is to succeed or come forth next, who is the universal spreading power of righteousnesse that gives liberty to the whole Creation, is made a servant.

And this Elder Son, or man of bondage, hath held the Earth in bondage to himself, not by a meek Law of Righteousnesse, But by subtle selfish Councels, and by open and violent force; for wherefore is it that there is such Wars and rumours of Wars in the Nations of the Earth? and wherefore are men so mad to destroy one another? But only to uphold Civil propriety of Honor, Dominion and Riches one over another, which is the curse the Creation groans under, waiting for deliverance.

But when once the Earth becomes a Common Treasury again, as it must, for all the Prophesies of Scriptures and Reason are Circled here in this Community, and mankind must have the Law of Righteousness once more writ in his heart, and all must be made of one heart, and one mind.

Then this Enmity in all Lands will cease, for none shall dare to seek a Dominion over others, neither shall any dare to kill another, nor desire more of the Earth then another; for he that will rule over, imprison, oppresse, and kill his fellow Creatures, under what pretence soever, is a destroyer of the Creation, and an actor of the Curse, and walks contrary to the rule of righteousnesse: (Do, as you would have others do to you; and love your Enemies, not in words, but in actions).

Therefore you powers of the Earth, or Lord Esau, the Elder brother, because youy have appeared to rule the Creation, first take notice, That the powere that sets you to work, is selvish Covetousness, and an aspiring Pride, to live in glory and ease over Jacob, the meek Spirit; that is, the Seed that lies hid, in & among the poor Common People, or younger Brother, out of whom the blessing of Deliverance is to rise and spring up to all Nations.

And Reason, the living king of righteousnesse, doth only look on, and lets thee alone, That whereas thou counts thy self an Angel of Light, thou shalt appear in the light of the Sun, to be a Devil, A-dam, and the Curse that the Creation groans under; and the time is now come for thy downfal, and Jacob must rise, who is the universal Spirit of love and righteousnesse, that fils, and will fill all the Earth.

Thou teaching and ruling power of flesh, thou hast had three periods of time, to vaunt thy self over thy Brother; the first was from the time of thy coming in, called A-dam, or a stoppage, till Moses came; and there thou that wast a self-lover in Cain, killed thy brother Abel, a plain-hearted man that loved righteousnesse: And thou by thy wisdom and beastly government, made the whole Earth to stinck, till Noah came, which was a time of the world, like the coming in of the watery Seed into the womb, towards the bringing forth of the man child.

And from Noah till Moses came, thou still hast ruled in vaunting, pride, and cruel oppression; Ishmael against Isaac, Esau against Jacob; for thou hast still been the man of flesh that hath ever persecuted the man of righteousnesse, the Spirit Reason.

And Secondly, from Moses till the Son of Man came, which was time of the world, that the man child could not speak like a man, but lisping, making signs to shew his meaning; as we see many Creatures that cannot speak do. For Moses Law was a Language lapped up in Types, Sacrifices, Forms, and Customs, which was weak time. And in this time likewise, O thou teaching and ruling power, thou wast an oppressor; for look into Scriptures and see if Aaron and the Priests were not the first that deceived the people; and the Rulers, as Kings and Governors, were continually the Ocean-head, out of whose power, Burdens, Oppressions, and Poverty did flow out upon the Earth: and these two Powers still hath been the Curse, that hath led the Earth, mankind, into confusion and death by their imaginary and selvish teaching and ruling, and it could be no otherwise; for while man looks upon himself, as an imperfect Creation, and seeks and runs abroad for a teacher and a rule, he is all this time a stranger to the Spirit that is within himself.

But though the Earth hath been generally thus in darknesse, since the A-dam rise up, and hath owned a Light, and a Law without them to walk by, yet some have been found as watchmen, in this night time of the world, that have been taught by the Spirit within them, and not by any flesh without them, as Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, and the Prophets: And these, and such as these, have still been the Butt, at whom, the powers of the Earth in all ages of the world, by their selvish Laws, have shot their fury.

And then Thirdly, from the time of the Son of man, which was time that the man-child began to speak like a child growing upward to manhood, till now, that the Spirit is rising up in strength. O thou teaching and ruling power of the earthly man, thou has been an oppressor, by imprisonment, impoverishing, and martyrdom; and all thy power and wit, hath been to make Laws, and execute thm against such as stand for universal Liberty, which is the rising up of Jacob: as by those ancient enslaving Laws not yet blotted out, but held up as weapons against the man-child.

O thou Powers of England, though thou hast promised to make this People a Free People, yet thou hast so handled the matter, through thy self-seeking humour, That thou has wrapped us up more in bondage, and oppression lies heavier upon us; not only bringing thy fellow Creatures, the Commoners, to a morsel of Bread, but by confounding all sorts of people by thy Government, of doing and undoing.

First, Thou hast made the people to take a Covenant and Oaths to endeavour a Reformation, and to bring in Liberty every man in his place; and yet while a man is in pursuing of that Covenant, he is imprisoned and oppressed by thy Officers, Courts, and Justices, so called.

Thou hast made Ordinances to cast down Oppressing, Popish, Episcopal, Self-willed and Prerogative Laws; yet we see, That Self-wil and Prerogative power, is the great standing Law, that rules all in action, and others in words.

Thou hast made many promises and protestations to make the Land a Free Nation: And yet at this very day, the same people, to whom thou hast made such Protestatins of Liberty, are oppressed by thy Courts, Sizes, Sessions, by thy Justices and Clarks of the Peace, so called, Bayliffs, Committees, are imprisoned, and forced to spend that bread, that should save their lives from Famine.

And all this, Because they stand to maintain an universal Liberty and Freedom, which not only is our Birthright, which our Maker gave us, but which thou hast promised to restore unto us, from under the former oppressing Powers that are gone before, and which likewise we have bought with our Money, in Taxes, Free-quarter, and Bloud-shed; all which Sums thou hast received at our hands, and yet thou hast not given us our bargain.

O thou A-dam, thu Esau, thou Cain, thou Hypocritical man of flesh, when wilt thou cease to kill thy younger Brother? Surely thou must not do this great work of advancing the Creation out of Bondage; for thou art lost extremely, and drowned in the Sea of Covetousnesse, Pride, and hardness of heart. The blessing shall rise out of the dust which thou treadest under foot, Even the poor despised People, and they shall hold up Salvation to this Land, and to all Lands, and thou shalt be ashamed.

Our bodies as yet are in thy hand, our Spirit waits in quiet and peace, upon our Father for Deliverance; and if he give our Bloud into thy hand, for thee to spill, know this, That he is our Almighty Captain: And if some of you will not dare to shed your bloud, to maintain Tyranny and Oppression upon the Creation, know this, That our Bloud and Life shall not be unwilling to be delivered up in meekness to maintain universal Liberty, that so the Curse on our part may be taken off the Creation.

And we shall not do this by force of Arms, we abhorre it, For that is the work of the Midianites, to kill one another; But by obeying the Lord of Hosts, who hath Revealed himself in us, and to us, by labouring the Earth in righteousness together, to eate our bread with the sweat of our brows, neither giving hire, nor taking hire, but working together, and eating together, as one man, or as one house of Israel restored from Bondage; and so by the power of Reason, the Law of righteousness in us, we endeavour to lift up the Creation from that bondage of Civil Propriety, which it groans under.

We are made to hold forth this Declaration to you that are the Great Councel, and to you the Great Army of the Land of England, that you may know what we would have, and what you are bound to give us by your Covenants and Promises; and that you may joyn with us in this Work, and so find Peace. Or else, if you do oppose us, we have peace in our Work, and in declaring this Report: And you shall be left without excuse.

The Work we are going about is this, To dig up Georges-Hill and the waste Ground thereabouts, and to Sow Corn, and to eat our bread together by the sweat of our brows.

And the First Reason is this, That we may work in righteousness, and lay the Foundation of making the Earth a Common Treasury for All, both Rich and Poor, That every one that is born in the land, may be fed by the Earth his Mother that brought him forth, according to the Reason that rules in the Creation. Not Inclosing any part into any particular hand, but all as one man, working together, and feeding together as Sons of one Father, members of one Family; not one Lording over another, but all looking upon each other, as equals in the Creation; so that our Maker may be glorified in the work of his own hands, and that every one may see, he is no respecter of Persons, but equally loves his whole Creation, and hates nothing but the Serpent, which is Covetousness, branching forth into selvish Imagination, Pride, Envie, Hypocrisie, Uncleanness; all seeking the ease and honor of flesh, and fighting against the Spirit Reason that made the Creation; for that is the Corruption, the Curse, the Devil, the Father of Lies; Death and Bondage that Serpent and Dragon that the Creation is to be delivered from.

http://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/winstanley/1649/levellers-standard.htm
 
Presumably the creative individual and the other workers involved in the process of production would decide between themselves, attempting to establish a distribution of wealth proportional to relative contribution. Do remember, the creative process is not the only form of productive endeavour which allows you to obtain such products: manufacture and distribution, whatever form they may take, are also necessary. The book does not arrive on the shelf by the writers hands alone, and less so the film adaptation in the cinema! Every worker who contributed to the process of production that lead to that end has a rightful share in the proceeds of that process, of whatever value.

I would presume the creative individual at least gets 50% themselves, since without them there is no creative work to be distributed - read: no cash for any of the common laborers either.

Divide the other half among those involved in distribution, I say.

Of course, this is just increasing incentive for writers to buy their own printing presses when possible. Why split profit when you can have it all to yourself, simply by eliminating the other people from the equation? (It's why one goal of creative works is to try and do as much of the job by yourself as possible)
 
I would presume the creative individual at least gets 50% themselves, since without them there is no creative work to be distributed - read: no cash for any of the common laborers either.

Divide the other half among those involved in distribution, I say.
Why the assumption that it is the writer is so special? Could the writer achieve the same production without the workers, from editors to store clerks? Why is his labour alone deemed to be exceptional in its necessity, simply because it precedes the rest?

Do note, by the way, that most authors receive royalties of around 10-15%. "50%", however you arrived at that ideal, is something that capitalism seems no more disposed to meeting than socialism.

Of course, this is just increasing incentive for writers to buy their own printing presses when possible. Why split profit when you can have it all to yourself, simply by eliminating the other people from the equation? (It's why one goal of creative works is to try and do as much of the job by yourself as possible)
Again, that's not a question peculiar to socialism, but one of any association of labour. A writer under capitalism has all the incentives to print his own work as under socialism.
 
Why the assumption that it is the writer is so special?

Because without the writer, there is no creative work. One ounce of economic activity fades away. It's not like with manufacturing, where you can have a democratic or appointed boss either way.

Could the writer achieve the same production without the workers, from editors to store clerks?

Clerks are taken care of by their own retail chains methinks.

Other than that, yes he could, but that ruins the point of specialisation - we become more efficient by focusing on fewer tasks, not more.

Of course, this just means socialism encourages innovation as much as capitalism, since the more labor is automated, the less the writer has to pay to anyone else.

Why is his labour alone deemed to be exceptional in its necessity, simply because it precedes the rest?

The same reason a farmer's labor is probably the most valuable, because without them, everyone has nothing since everyone starves. Without the creative individual, there is no creative work to be distributed - no jobs for those involved in the chain.

Do note, by the way, that most authors receive royalties of around 10-15%. "50%", however you arrived at that ideal, is something that capitalism seems no more disposed to meeting than socialism.

The idea is that if both rely on eachother - writers need laborers to distribute and laborers need writers to create something worth distributing - then logic says the fairest distribution is half to the writer and half to everyone else.
 
Regardless of the logic, even capitalism doesn't give the creator half of the profits. What was the artist's cut of the profits for music again? I think it was a single-digit percentage.
 
Sort of derived from what the earlier poster asked, how would a communist or socialist society deal with online piracy? Or better yet, the internet. What is stopping an author from simply copy/pasting his work and then allowing unlimited downloads? Doesn't filesharing eliminate a lot of labor, particularly on the production and distribution end of things?
 
Regardless of the logic, even capitalism doesn't give the creator half of the profits. What was the artist's cut of the profits for music again? I think it was a single-digit percentage.

But socialism is all about giving people more for their labor based on their total contribution, rather than who happened to found a business.

Since the writer and his distributors are interdependent, they each deserve half.
 
Sort of derived from what the earlier poster asked, how would a communist or socialist society deal with online piracy? Or better yet, the internet. What is stopping an author from simply copy/pasting his work and then allowing unlimited downloads? Doesn't filesharing eliminate a lot of labor, particularly on the production and distribution end of things?

Why would that be considered a problem? I imagine most things would simply be in the public domain.
 
But socialism is all about giving people more for their labor based on their total contribution, rather than who happened to found a business.

Since the writer and his distributors are interdependent, they each deserve half.

If you can negotiate half with the worker's collective distributing your work, go for it. Same for any artist that can negotiate that with their record label.
 
Why would that be considered a problem? I imagine most things would simply be in the public domain.

If most things would be in the public domain what would happen to all those who were employed in the publishing industry, and what about authors and artists who needed to support themselves on their work?
 
Because without the writer, there is no creative work. One ounce of economic activity fades away. It's not like with manufacturing, where you can have a democratic or appointed boss either way.
But the role of the writer is one of production, not of ownership. He contributes a certain amount of labour to the production process, as do the other workers, but neither contribution can be realised as meaningful value without the other; the whole is more than the sum of the parts. If one part is more valuable than others, then that simply gives the individual contributing a greater position of strength from which to bargain from.

Other than that, yes he could, but that ruins the point of specialisation - we become more efficient by focusing on fewer tasks, not more.
I meant to point that his current contribution depends upon the contribution of others to be realised, not that he could not expand his own contribution. My point was that, as it stands, the writer is as reliant on the worker as the reverse; any change in the writers contribution necessarily alters the form which association takes.

The same reason a farmer's labor is probably the most valuable, because without them, everyone has nothing since everyone starves. Without the creative individual, there is no creative work to be distributed - no jobs for those involved in the chain.
Why do we assume that, because one form of labour precedes others, it must be the most valuable form? The farmer would hardly be able to produce as he does without somebody to build his tractor, drill his fuel, distribute his products, despite the fact that all those workers are also dependent upon him. Without later labour, the initial labour remains unrealised, and so is of no value; chronology is irrelevant to the fact of mutual dependence. Society is far too complex for the duration of any one agriculture cycle to be seen as an independent block of economic activity.

The idea is that if both rely on eachother - writers need laborers to distribute and laborers need writers to create something worth distributing - then logic says the fairest distribution is half to the writer and half to everyone else.
No it doesn't. It dictates that profit be distributed on the basis of proportional contribution, which is by not necessarily even. What is "proportional"? Well, that's for the contributors of labour, the workers, to decide amongst themselves.

Sort of derived from what the earlier poster asked, how would a communist or socialist society deal with online piracy? Or better yet, the internet. What is stopping an author from simply copy/pasting his work and then allowing unlimited downloads? Doesn't filesharing eliminate a lot of labor, particularly on the production and distribution end of things?
Why is this a question peculiar to socialism? That a different conception of ownership exists does not mean that there is none at all. It would simply be based on labour, rather than private property.
 
I just came up with a nice Marxist sound bite: Money is why we can't have nice things.

How much do merit do you guys think this purposively vague statement has?
 
I just came up with a nice Marxist sound bite: Money is why we can't have nice things.

How much do merit do you guys think this purposively vague statement has?
Zero. Find me any society in history, one without money, that you'd rather live in.
 
Zero. Find me any society in history, one without money, that you'd rather live in.

I wasn't directing the question to you. Also, taking a purposively vague statement too literally is usually a bad idea, and I certainly wasn't asking whether this is practicable. It's a Marxist sound bite in a Marxist thread, not a proposition in a thread discussing the contemporary state of the economy.
 
They honestly do not. In fact, many socialist have been devoutly religious, seeing their faith as the inspiration for their political views- our good friend Cheezy the Whiz is just one such individual. In Britain, in particular, socialism has long been associated with non-conforming Protestant Churches (that is to say, non-Anglican churches), such as the famous Scottish politician and trade unionist Keir Hardie, who expressed his Christian Socialism thus:

Cheezy is religious? I honestly did not know that. What religion? Christianity I assume since you mentioned it?

I do agree that CelticEmpire's question is somewhat inaccurate in any case.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom