[blackball3242]

I'm just curious as to the role of occupations not directly linked to the means of production in a socialist state.

Artists are just one example- but how would a painter become a full time artist?

Would they have to apply to the "department of culture" and undergo a rigorous certification process before being paid a stipend for their work? Or would the paid artists be chosen democratically? Or maybe we wouldn't have full time artists. And what about film makers?

In capitalism, artists and film makers are sustained through the selling of their pieces but I assume you don't have that in a socialist society.

I guess you could come up with a system where spending and the distribution of funds on art is decided democratically- where a person can choose to "fund" a project and the more people who choose to do so, the more funds that go to that project. I'm imagining this to be a lot like the kickstarter funding service- except "votes" could be democratic and could be weighted depending on interest.

Of course, this probably wreck certain forms of art that haven't traditionally been entertainment for the "masses"- opera, ballet, and any bourgeoisie past times for the most part- but then again, this seems like a small price to pay for a more democratic society.

Thoughts?

[Dagoth Ur]

The idea of full-time artists is a problem in and of itself. In socialism, and even better communism, the artist would be everyone.

[Someone5]

I'm just curious as to the role of occupations not directly linked to the means of production in a socialist state.

One of many examples of why statist socialism is, ironically, alienating.

Artists are just one example- but how would a painter become a full time artist?

I don't think there would be "full-time artist" as a profession. They would just be unemployed people who created a lot of art. Which would be okay, because choosing not to work would be an acceptable choice in a genuine socialist society.

[Vera Politica]

I don't think there would be "full-time artist" as a profession. They would just be unemployed people who created a lot of art. Which would be okay, because choosing not to work would be an acceptable choice in a genuine socialist society.

Lenin: Who does not work shall not eat.

[The Clockwork Rat]

Lenin: Who does not work shall not eat.

Then who decides which art counts as work?

[Vera Politica]

Then who decides which art counts as work?

Dunno. I haven't given this much thought. I was merely saying that Someone5's claim that refusing to work is an acceptable position in a socialist society is utter nonsense.

I would imagine that most art would be financed as most art is in today's economy: through institutional support/grants, etc.

[KlassWar]

Either consumers like your art and are thus willing to fund it... Or you'll have to produce art on commission for the working class's mass organizations, 'cause they'll replace capitalist mass media.

Assuming you want to be a full-time artist, that is. You could always be a part-time artist and produce whatever the Hell you want ('s long as it ain't counterrevolutionary enough to get the ChK on your ass )

[The Clockwork Rat]

I would imagine that most art would be financed as most art is in today's economy: through institutional support/grants, etc.

So retaining a regressive mechanism of cultural production? I can accept that it may be necessary to resort to such a method during a revolutionary period, but by suggesting that art should be state funded you, or the grantor, will be delineating 'high' from 'pop', 'low' and 'subversive' art. This opens up a weak point in that art incessently strives to challenge hegemony in all its forms.

I guess what I'm getting at is who decides which art counts as work? The problem with the question is that the answer is inevitably destabilising.

you'll have to produce art on commission for the working class's mass organizations, 'cause they'll replace capitalist mass media.

And how is the working class going to decide the value of various artists' work? Would any of us assert that mass direct democracy in art has had a beneficial cultural impact (re: X-Factor)?

[Daktoria]

Either consumers like your art and are thus willing to fund it... Or you'll have to produce art on commission for the working class's mass organizations, 'cause they'll replace capitalist mass media.

Assuming you want to be a full-time artist, that is. You could always be a part-time artist and produce whatever the Hell you want ('s long as it ain't counterrevolutionary enough to get the ChK on your ass )

Great... more blase pop culture.

[KlassWar]

Nothing bars voluntarily constituted hobbyist organizations from commissioning art, either.

[Someone5]

Lenin: Who does not work shall not eat.

Let me also point out that Lenin's system didn't work too well, so there is obvious room for improvement. Given that socialism is predicated upon advanced economic development, and such development can easily result in surpluses sufficient to let most people not work, that seems like the obvious answer to the question of artists.

[Negotiator]

This problem with artists is a huge problem if you want to create a society where the definition of work is based on productive work only. Less than half of all work is productive. Less then half of all jobs are productive.

A teacher doesnt produce anything. Yes, there are children who have learned something, but thats not a product you can sell.
A doctor doesnt produce anything. People get healthier. Again no product.
A merchant doesnt produce anything. They only sell products other people produced.
A policeman doesnt produce anything. They make our life a bit safer, thats all. No product.
A busdriver doesnt produce anything. They help people move around. Again no product.
A journalist doesnt produce anything. They fill the newspapers and other news media, but the newspaper is actually produced by the printer, etc.
A manager doesnt produce anything. They overview other peoples work - possibly productive work.
A politician doesnt produce anything. They try to improve the law.

And so on and so forth.

Artist is just another example for this. They produce a kind of product, but its really small compared to what "real" workers can produce.

Thus, if you base the definition of work on production alone, you cannot construct a working society.

Lenin: Who does not work shall not eat.

Not much into human rights, that lenin guy, is he ?

Also - as long as enough food is produced, why not distribute it to everyone according to their needs ?

[Vera Politica]

Not much into human rights, that lenin guy, is he ?

Lenin thought that a nation should protect and enforce the right to work, which all Soviets had. Given this, what he said is no trouble at all. The right to work is not an enforceable right in capitalist economies since this would pressure wages to increase.

Your post, also, has made a critical error. It is not that a single person produces something but that a person is involved in the production process which is a socialized process (socialized thanks to capitalism). Thus, a teacher is as essential to the production process as a line worker, at least the modern, high-tech production process.

[Daktoria]

Lenin thought that a nation should protect and enforce the right to work, which all Soviets had. Given this, what he said is no trouble at all. The right to work is not an enforceable right in capitalist economies since this would pressure wages to increase.

Your post, also, has made a critical error. It is not that a single person produces something but that a person is involved in the production process which is a socialized process (socialized thanks to capitalism). Thus, a teacher is as essential to the production process as a line worker, at least the modern, high-tech production process.

How does socialism calculate the use-value of abstract labor?

[Negotiator]

Thus, a teacher is as essential to the production process as a line worker, at least the modern, high-tech production process.

Which means you define teachers as "people who reduce workers", a definition most teachers would be highly offended by, because the purpose of teaching is to create independently thinking people, not work slaves.

And artists provide for society, and a lot, since they provide entertainment and expansion of perspective.

[Vera Politica]

How does socialism calculate the use-value of abstract labor?

We do not quantify use-value. We quantify exchange value. The value of a thing (i.e. not its use-value but its value), in Marxian economics, is calculated by the socially necessary labor time to produce that product. The use-value of a thing is trivial, i.e., the use value of a shovel is to remove snow, dig a hole, etc.

Which means you define teachers as "people who reduce workers", a definition most teachers would be highly offended by, because the purpose of teaching is to create independently thinking people, not work slaves.

The primary function of elementary and secondary high-schools is to produce literacy, basic numeracy, etc. This is not to say that they do not have other functions, but public elementary schools and high-schools do not produce independently thinking people. When it comes to universities there is a major difference between, say, getting a degree in mathematics and getting a degree in engineering. The latter is more directly attached to the production process. Moreover, professor's primary roles are in research which is also directly tied to the production process. On the other hand, these institutions must also produce educated people and this is directly tied to the proper functioning of democratic governments and a rule-of-law society.

Yes teachers do their best to create critical, analytical individuals, but our educational institutions will not be at risk if these tasks are not done. They will, however, be at risk if they do not produce literacy, numeracy and others forms of training (computer literacy, etc.)

Essentially my point is that we are ALL productive members of society; this is something which you denied.

[Daktoria]

We do not quantify use-value. We quantify exchange value. The value of a thing (i.e. not its use-value but its value), in Marxian economics, is calculated by the socially necessary labor time to produce that product. The use-value of a thing is trivial, i.e., the use value of a shovel is to remove snow, dig a hole, etc.

I'm sorry, but this doesn't make any sense.

Everyone's labor time isn't equal, and commodities have to be used in order to produce other commodities. That's the technical relations of production after all.

Financial surplus value also comes from merely exchanging commodities. It sounds like you don't have a problem with profit.

[Vera Politica]

Of course labor-time isn't equal; this is why we use socially necessary labor-time.

Indeed, other commodities (along with labor-time) must be used to produce other commodities. But every given commodity's value is determined by the socially-necessary labor-time to produce/extract/transport that commodity (in the end).

What I said is very basic Marxian economic theory.

[Daktoria]

If labor-time isn't equal, and you're not calculating use-value, I don't see what value remains in your second paragraph.

Indeed, other commodities (along with labor-time) must be used to produce other commodities.

But every given commodity's value is determined by the socially-necessary labor-time to produce/extract/transport that commodity (in the end).

You're confusing me.

[Vera Politica]

Socially-necessary labor-time is the average labor-time in a given economic context to produce a given commodity. If the socially-necessary labor-time to produce a hat is, say, 0.3 hours, you will not add value to your product by producing hats at 0.7 hours a piece. One, however, will extract tremendous gains if they can produce the hats at 0.2 units. Industries that can produce hats at 0.2 units will eventually out-compete those industries producing at 0.3 or 0.4, shifting the average down to 0.2 and reducing the value of the commodity (this explains why mass, intensive production reduces the value of certain products).

There are problems with the labor-theory of value, no doubt, but I think you are confused about the very basics of Marxian economics.

Note also that the price of a product does not necessarily reflect its value (i.e. the socially-necessary labor-time 'contained' in the price). The price is determined the old-fashioned way: supply and demand. More complex Marxian economics consists of describing the relationship between value and price.