Jump to content

Welcome to FutureTimeline.forum
Register now to gain access to all of our features. Once registered and logged in, you will be able to create topics, post replies to existing threads, give reputation to your fellow members, get your own private messenger, post status updates, manage your profile and so much more. If you already have an account, login here - otherwise create an account for free today!

These ads will disappear if you register on the forum

Photo

as an artist/writer, what can socialism do for me?

socialism captailism debate future replacement basic needs the future of economy economic

  • Please log in to reply
9 replies to this topic

#1
Ewolf20

Ewolf20

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 170 posts
  • LocationColumbia,sc

i don't identify as a socialist although i agree with some aspects of it. i have sat down and thought about it for awhile but i wanted to ask this: would you still be rewarded when you make entertainment for the people? sure it might not solve world hunger, stop poverty, or find cures, but it makes people happy. i want people take break from doing work for society and have fun for a bit. if there's nothing for them, what is the point? this is where i come to my main point, if capitalism evolves into a new form of economy that's similar to socialism, what will happen to our video games, our books, our movies, our tv shows, and even comics? will they end up deader than disco or end up changing to adapt to the new market.



#2
Lux

Lux

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 281 posts

It depends on what type of socialism.

 

In Northern Europe. artists who are licensed can get sponsorship from the government through various funds. Let's say that for every successful cultural entrepreneur in a typical country, there are 99 struggling ones. In general, artists tend to be left-leaning - for the reason that their considerable work investment into their works often is appealing to fringe markets or simply not successful.

On the other hand, if you are an artist in Sweden, you will be more successful in attaining government attention if your art celebrates the vagina.



#3
Ghostreaper

Ghostreaper

    Hopelessly optimistic

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 640 posts
  • LocationWest Midlands, UK

There are many constants in human nature, one of them is personal preference. Even if we developed into a globally connected world where all means of production was handled by automated processes, food, living spaces, transportation, energy, waste disposal etc, people would still want items that appealed to their personal tastes and as such there will always be a market for even the smallest artist.

 

You could say that such a market could not exist because it does not exist today, the reason artists can find it difficult to make a living today is because of our economic model, they require the income of their art to live. When they are unable to compete with larger companies who sell products equal or more desirable than theirs then their market dries up and they are forced to abandon that pursuit in favour of a more stable income.

Imagine a world where machines produced and maintained everything humans need to live (listed above), machines built and maintained by other machines. At some point down the line, who is there to compensate for those machines existing? The grand children of the engineer who made the first machine? Why would they receive compensation? At that point those machines would essentially be free to everyone.

 

The economic model of capitalism still existed but purely for luxury living beyond those basic needs. You buy luxury items with money you made from creating and selling other luxury items. If you decided you didn't want to make anything then you don't run the risk of starving or becoming homeless, you just give up the ability to purchase luxury items (like larger houses, entertainment, holidays, exotic food, personal transport etc)

In such a world people would still work, artists may still be out done by larger companies, but they would not be forced to give up their artwork because they would not require it to earn a living.

 

edit: I realise this doesn't really address the issue about what socialism can do for you right now, but without the technology listed above I doubt you'd have to worry about socialism in the near future anyway.


“If the genius of invention were to reveal to-morrow the secret of immortality, of eternal beauty and youth, for which all humanity is aching, the same inexorable agents which prevent a mass from changing suddenly its velocity would likewise resist the force of the new knowledge until time gradually modifies human thought.” 

 

                                                                 Nikola Tesla - New York World, May 19th 1907 


#4
Ewolf20

Ewolf20

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 170 posts
  • LocationColumbia,sc

There are many constants in human nature, one of them is personal preference. Even if we developed into a globally connected world where all means of production was handled by automated processes, food, living spaces, transportation, energy, waste disposal etc, people would still want items that appealed to their personal tastes and as such there will always be a market for even the smallest artist.

 

You could say that such a market could not exist because it does not exist today, the reason artists can find it difficult to make a living today is because of our economic model, they require the income of their art to live. When they are unable to compete with larger companies who sell products equal or more desirable than theirs then their market dries up and they are forced to abandon that pursuit in favour of a more stable income.

Imagine a world where machines produced and maintained everything humans need to live (listed above), machines built and maintained by other machines. At some point down the line, who is there to compensate for those machines existing? The grand children of the engineer who made the first machine? Why would they receive compensation? At that point those machines would essentially be free to everyone.

 

The economic model of capitalism still existed but purely for luxury living beyond those basic needs. You buy luxury items with money you made from creating and selling other luxury items. If you decided you didn't want to make anything then you don't run the risk of starving or becoming homeless, you just give up the ability to purchase luxury items (like larger houses, entertainment, holidays, exotic food, personal transport etc)

In such a world people would still work, artists may still be out done by larger companies, but they would not be forced to give up their artwork because they would not require it to earn a living.

 

edit: I realise this doesn't really address the issue about what socialism can do for you right now, but without the technology listed above I doubt you'd have to worry about socialism in the near future anyway.

that feels depressing the art i want to do is more freelance and sometimes i want to do industry standard stuff. i suck at art though but it really would be great if there was some benefit in wanting to make entertainment. sure, capitalism is flawed but atleast ti works.



#5
caltrek

caltrek

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,197 posts

Under royalist dominated governments, even kings, queens and princes sponsored favored artists.

 

So, artists can be supported by royalists, capitalists, or socialists.  


The principles of justice define an appropriate path between dogmatism and intolerance on the one side, and a reductionism which regards religion and morality as mere preferences on the other.   - John Rawls


#6
Ghostreaper

Ghostreaper

    Hopelessly optimistic

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 640 posts
  • LocationWest Midlands, UK

 

that feels depressing the art i want to do is more freelance and sometimes i want to do industry standard stuff. i suck at art though but it really would be great if there was some benefit in wanting to make entertainment. sure, capitalism is flawed but atleast ti works.

 

 

Not sure if you understood my meaning.

Current capitalism: If your day job is your art, you have to compete with larger more financially able entities just so you don't starve, or you have to do your art as a second job

 

The hypothetical world I described: If your day job is art, it doesn't matter that you have to compete with larger more financially able entities because even if they take a lot of your customers you already have your basic needs met. You can be a full time artist and sell your paintings without the thought that if you don't you'll become homeless.


“If the genius of invention were to reveal to-morrow the secret of immortality, of eternal beauty and youth, for which all humanity is aching, the same inexorable agents which prevent a mass from changing suddenly its velocity would likewise resist the force of the new knowledge until time gradually modifies human thought.” 

 

                                                                 Nikola Tesla - New York World, May 19th 1907 


#7
Erowind

Erowind

    Psychonaut, Aspiring Mathematician and Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 523 posts
  • LocationInside some convoluted formula I don't actually understand.

I'm going to assume by socialism we mean developed forms of communism here. Socialism is just a transitional ideology with the aim anyhow. 

 

Under automated communism you would be able to make as much as you want with freely provided resources to do so, you would not be required to work to produce that art either. There would probably still me a mutualist market of some sort for goods that can't be mass produced, human made art would be one them. That means you'd have to compete with other artists if you want people to buy your art. If you want a lot of people to marvel at it you'd have to gain a following in the social media economies of the future. With all of this said, if you wanted to make art for the sake of making art and don't care about selling it or others appreciating it outside your friend circles. You'd be able to make art all day every day with no restriction or outside pressure, like having to work for food or the like.

 

Under non-automated communism things would be very similar. The difference is that you would be socially expected to work every once and a while to contribute to your community and produce wealth for society. Don't worry, labour requirements would be minuscule compared to today. I'm not going to take the time to explain the technical economics, but you'd likely only have to work 3-5 hours every other week with current technology. That work could be highly skilled if you have those skills or something as simple--but equally needed--as picking vegetables in a community farm. And if for some reason you fell into illness or depression you would not be expected to work at all until you've recovered fully, vacations would also be long and frequent. Although I wonder if anyone would really need to vacate given how unstressful this society would be.


Current status: slaving away for the math gods of Pythagoras VII.


#8
Sciencerocks

Sciencerocks

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,721 posts

Socialism is the idea of working together as a people.

 

Civilization at its heart is a socialist idea.

 

The artist can be an artist because he can sell his product fairly on the market that is protected by the government through copy right laws. The artist can feel safe because of the police.

The artist doesn't have to worry about farming and has time to paint because of other people doing it.

 

Think about it.


To follow my work on tropical cyclones


#9
Erowind

Erowind

    Psychonaut, Aspiring Mathematician and Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 523 posts
  • LocationInside some convoluted formula I don't actually understand.

Socialism is the idea of working together as a people.

 

Civilization at its heart is a socialist idea.

 

The artist can be an artist because he can sell his product fairly on the market that is protected by the government through copy right laws. The artist can feel safe because of the police.

The artist doesn't have to worry about farming and has time to paint because of other people doing it.

 

Think about it.

 

Are you implying that a person is only truly an artist if they sell their art? Are you saying that art is nothing more than a product? What if people don't want the police to protect them? What if they want to be left alone to manage their own conflicts? What gives the police or the state the right to force themselves on these people?

 

It doesn't have to be farming, we all have a social responsibility to our communities to care for them and they care for us. I run an anti-profit bookstore for example, that doesn't take more than 6-8 hours out of my week and actually means something. People use that bookstore as a launching point for other community projects, we give food to the homeless, send books to prisoners and are even opening a free skool soon. When I was on the commune people did a plethora of things to contribute. There were programmers, farmers, industrial engineers and artisans of all types. In return the commune collectively provides them with food, shelter, medical care and a lot of middle class luxuries. They have a full music room with recording equipment, a massive library, a movie room, a filtered swimming pond, huge common spaces, a computer lab and all the things you would expect in a middle class home. Heck, their bathrooms were 4-5 times the size of mine and their kitchens are larger than my living room on average. People there take responsibility for their community instead of expecting someone else to work for them. I genuinely can't believe that your telling me working a few hours a week is worse than wage slavery--especially when that labour fully benefits yourself and those around you instead of someone in a board room.

 

Now at the commune I mentioned they do work 39 hours a week, but that's because if they don't, they won't have the resources to support themselves in our capitalist world. In a world where all communities worked together and share resources, the required amount of labour would go down exponentially. With all idle hands put to work, individuals don't have to work much. There are some communes where the labour quota is lower, and the one I mentioned is working on automating a factory they have on sight with the aim of lowering required labour.


Current status: slaving away for the math gods of Pythagoras VII.


#10
caltrek

caltrek

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,197 posts

The story below is not easy to categorize as to whether it is about a socialist approach versus a capitalist approach.  It has elements of both.  Because some brands of socialism itself has other elements within it, it could qualify in that sense as being about socialist support of the arts.  I like that it is about local government support as opposed to support from a central government.

 

 

This Small City is Showing How Supporting Artists Can Have a Big Impact
 

http://​https://www....have-big-impact

 

Introduction:

 

(Alternet) Dayton, Ohio is cool. Yes, really.

 

This little Midwestern city of 140,000 is overlooked by most of the USA—flyover country, they call it. Yet Dayton is teeming with the hallmarks of a sophisticated city: diverse population, farm-to-table bistros, local beers, hip bars, music, independent theater… and art. Lots of art.

 

Dayton Metro Library is leading this cultural change, investing one million dollars in local art, creating library spaces where the public is coming for everything from grassroots organizing and local chamber of commerce meetings to weddings and family reunions—in addition to library standbys like reading and research. The program is called Reimagining Works, and it's inspiring people to hang out at their neighborhood library, by design.

 

Jayne Klose, spokesperson for the Dayton Metro Library system, says a $187 million bond issue passed in 2012—the largest in Ohio—to pay to rebuild the main library and rebuild or renovate 16 other libraries. (Klose was the campaign manager for the bond.) Then, an anonymous donor bequeathed $1 million to the library and the board decided to earmark those funds for local public art in their new libraries.

 

Recognizing they weren’t art experts, the library issued a request for proposals, and the Dayton Art Institute was awarded the partnership. From there, they worked out a program whereby public forums are held in the community where the library and art will be, to learn what the community values. The Dayton Art Institute then selects works from its collection that it thinks will speak to the community, and then the community votes on what they want to inspire the artists—what the artists will “reimagine.”

 

34168336876_de83a3c9ec_c_1.jpg?itok=EeJA

Dayton Metro Library's signature piece: Fractal Rain by Terry Welker
Photo Credit: vistavision / Flickr


The principles of justice define an appropriate path between dogmatism and intolerance on the one side, and a reductionism which regards religion and morality as mere preferences on the other.   - John Rawls






Also tagged with one or more of these keywords: socialism, captailism, debate, future, replacement, basic needs, the future of economy, economic

0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users