Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
Logically, why aren't artists accused, according to Marxist economic theory, of charging monopoly prices for their unique work (which only they can produce) ? And why don't their suppliers & buyers, thusly, demand from them the excess "surplus value" (P - costs) ?
Logically, why aren't artists accused, according to Marxist economic theory, of charging monopoly prices for their unique work (which only they can produce) ? And why don't their suppliers & buyers, thusly, demand from them the excess "surplus value" (P - costs) ?
In communist societies all art belongs to the state. It is created for the state who has control over the content. The artist has no right to his or her work product.
This came up recently in an art show I exhibited in. It was through the Historical Society so all the pictures were of some location of historical significance. A few paintings were sold that were priced between $100. and $150. On was sold for $400.00. Someone wrote to the historical society complaining that it was unfair that a single artist should be compensated so far and above the work of the other artists and some artists who worked just as hard, got nothing. It was suggested that the paintings all be priced the same, with the proceeds of all sales equally distributed among all the artists whether or not they sold anything at all.
That's equality and no one paid any attention to the complaint. In a Marxist society the state would have owned all the paintings and compensated the artists according to the level of party loyalty not how well they did. If a painting was sold, the government got the proceeds of sale because the government would fairly distribute the money according to the needs of the people.
Probably because Marx entire theory is flawed and not well thought out.
No, Marx theory is retarded. Here, let me show you a piece of what I mean:
The Marxian Doctrine of "Ideology"
This article is excerpted from volume 2, chapter 12 of An Austrian Perspective on the History of Economic Thought (1995). An MP3 audio file of this chapter, narrated by Jeff Riggenbach, is available for download.]
Even Marx must dimly recognize that not "material productive forces," not even "classes," act in the real world, but only individual consciousness and individual choice. Even in the Marxian analysis, each class, or the individuals within it, must become conscious of its "true" class interests in order to act upon pursuing or achieving them. To Marx, each individual's thinking, his values and theories, are all determined, not by his personal self-interest, but by the interest of the class to which he supposedly belongs. This is the first fatal flaw in the argument; why in the world should each individual ever hold his class higher than himself? Second, according to Marx, this class interest determines his thoughts and viewpoints, and must do so, because each person is only capable of "ideology" or false consciousness in the interest of his class. He is not capable of a disinterested, objective search for truth, nor of pursuit of his own interest or of that of all mankind. But, as von Mises has pointed out, Marx's doctrine pretends to be pure, non-ideological science, and yet written expressly to advance the class interest of the proletariat. But, while all "bourgeois" economics and all other disciplines of thought were interpreted by Marx as false by definition, as "ideological" rationalizations of bourgeois class interest, the Marxists
were not consistent enough to assign to their own doctrines merely ideological character. The Marxian tenets, they implied, are not ideologies. They are a foretaste of the knowledge of the future classless society which, freed from the fetters of class conflicts, will be in a position to conceive pure knowledge, untainted by ideological blemishes.[1]
David Gordon has aptly summed up this point:
If all thought about social and economic matters is determined by class position, what about the Marxist system itself? If, as Marx proudly proclaimed, he aimed at providing a science for the working class, why should any of his views be accepted as true? Mises rightly notes that Marx's view is self-refuting: if all social thought is ideological, then this proposition is itself ideological and the grounds for believing it have been undercut. In his Theories of Surplus Value, Marx cannot contain his sneering at the "apologetics" of various bourgeois economists. He did not realize that in his constant jibes at the class bias of his fellow economists, he was but digging the grave of his own giant work of propaganda on behalf of the proletariat.[2]
Von Mises also raises the point that it is absurd to believe that the interests of any class, including the capitalists, could ever be served better by a false than by a correct doctrine.[3] To Marx, the point of philosophy was only the achievement of some practical goal. But if, as in pragmatism, truth is only "what works," then surely the interests of the bourgeoisie would not be served by clinging to a false theory of society. If the Marxian answer holds, as it has, that false theory is necessary to justify the existence of capitalist rule, then, as von Mises points out, from the Marxian point of view itself the theory should not be necessary. Since each class ruthlessly pursues its own interest, there is no need for the capitalists to justify their rule and their alleged exploitation to themselves. There is also no need to use these false doctrines to keep the proletariat subservient, since, to Marxists, the rule or the overthrow of a given social system depends on the material productive forces, and there is no way by which consciousness can delay this development or speed it up. Or, if there are such ways, and the Marxists often implicitly concede this fact, then there is a grave and self-defeating flaw in the heart of Marxian theory itself.
In communist societies all art belongs to the state. It is created for the state who has control over the content. The artist has no right to his or her work product.
This came up recently in an art show I exhibited in. It was through the Historical Society so all the pictures were of some location of historical significance. A few paintings were sold that were priced between $100. and $150. On was sold for $400.00. Someone wrote to the historical society complaining that it was unfair that a single artist should be compensated so far and above the work of the other artists and some artists who worked just as hard, got nothing. It was suggested that the paintings all be priced the same, with the proceeds of all sales equally distributed among all the artists whether or not they sold anything at all.
That's equality and no one paid any attention to the complaint. In a Marxist society the state would have owned all the paintings and compensated the artists according to the level of party loyalty not how well they did. If a painting was sold, the government got the proceeds of sale because the government would fairly distribute the money according to the needs of the people.
Who's talking about communism? I was talking about socialism. In my understanding, theoretical communism has no state government at all. It is communal.
In communist societies all art belongs to the state. It is created for the state who has control over the content. The artist has no right to his or her work product.
This came up recently in an art show I exhibited in. It was through the Historical Society so all the pictures were of some location of historical significance. A few paintings were sold that were priced between $100. and $150. On was sold for $400.00. Someone wrote to the historical society complaining that it was unfair that a single artist should be compensated so far and above the work of the other artists and some artists who worked just as hard, got nothing. It was suggested that the paintings all be priced the same, with the proceeds of all sales equally distributed among all the artists whether or not they sold anything at all.
That's equality and no one paid any attention to the complaint. In a Marxist society the state would have owned all the paintings and compensated the artists according to the level of party loyalty not how well they did. If a painting was sold, the government got the proceeds of sale because the government would fairly distribute the money according to the needs of the people.
Who's talking about communism? I was talking about socialism. In my understanding, theoretical communism has no state government at all. It is communal.
Read Marx. Socialism is the very beginnings of communism. It lays the foundation for communism. According to Engles, the last stage of communism the "state will wither away" and no longer be necessary. No one would have need of a state, humanity would be reduced to a neat little self perpetuating machine.
The State and Revolution Chapter 5
Communism envisions a utopian society. Like all utopian societies it ends up horrible.
corporate government limits discussion based upon agendas.
corporate government limits discussion based upon agendas.
limits??? You have Limbaugh and Hannity on the right and the MSM the left!!!
Thats limited????????????
see why we are positive a liberal will be slow, so very very slow??? Is there any way to disagree??
A little hard not to agree with the facts.
Sort of like the fact that Marx argument on classes was fatally flawed from the start. Along with is theory of Value and a handful of other "theories" of his and Engels.
corporate government limits discussion based upon agendas.
limits??? You have Limbaugh and Hannity on the right and the MSM the left!!!
Thats limited????????????
see why we are positive a liberal will be slow, so very very slow??? Is there any way to disagree??
You remain a partisan dumbass.
limits??? You have Limbaugh and Hannity on the right and the MSM the left!!!
Thats limited????????????
see why we are positive a liberal will be slow, so very very slow??? Is there any way to disagree??
You remain a partisan dumbass.
you remain too slow for substance. Do you think you are bright enough to be here???
limits??? You have Limbaugh and Hannity on the right and the MSM the left!!! They are mortal enemies too
Thats limited????????????
