Marx on Artists ?

Discussion in 'Economy' started by Widdekind, Jan 3, 2013.

  1. Widdekind
    Offline

    Widdekind Member

    Joined:
    Mar 26, 2012
    Messages:
    813
    Thanks Received:
    35
    Trophy Points:
    16
    Ratings:
    +35
    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) ?
     
  2. EdwardBaiamonte
    Offline

    EdwardBaiamonte Gold Member

    Joined:
    Nov 23, 2011
    Messages:
    27,548
    Thanks Received:
    1,130
    Trophy Points:
    205
    Ratings:
    +3,047
    and why don't liberals attack athletes and entertainers for their incredible salaries?? Why just business people?? I guess attacking the people's beloved heros in sports and entertainment would backfire.

    I have no idea why business people aren't considered as heroic given their more substantive contributions? Any ideas??

    Oh I got it, its because Marx simply neglected this subject back in the 19th Century.
     
    Last edited: Jan 3, 2013
  3. tooAlive
    Offline

    tooAlive Silver Member

    Joined:
    Oct 26, 2012
    Messages:
    1,450
    Thanks Received:
    213
    Trophy Points:
    98
    Location:
    United States
    Ratings:
    +214
    Because Marx was wrong.
     
  4. Freemason9
    Offline

    Freemason9 Gold Member

    Joined:
    Aug 14, 2012
    Messages:
    2,477
    Thanks Received:
    279
    Trophy Points:
    130
    Ratings:
    +458
    DUH.

    Because artists control the means of their production. They are pure socialists.

    Dipshit.
     
  5. Katzndogz
    Offline

    Katzndogz Diamond Member

    Joined:
    Sep 27, 2011
    Messages:
    65,659
    Thanks Received:
    7,418
    Trophy Points:
    1,830
    Ratings:
    +8,337
    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.
     
  6. Freemason9
    Offline

    Freemason9 Gold Member

    Joined:
    Aug 14, 2012
    Messages:
    2,477
    Thanks Received:
    279
    Trophy Points:
    130
    Ratings:
    +458
    Who's talking about communism? I was talking about socialism. In my understanding, theoretical communism has no state government at all. It is communal.
     
    Last edited: Jan 4, 2013
  7. TakeAStepBack
    Offline

    TakeAStepBack Gold Member

    Joined:
    Mar 29, 2011
    Messages:
    13,935
    Thanks Received:
    1,723
    Trophy Points:
    245
    Ratings:
    +2,012
    Probably because Marx entire theory is flawed and not well thought out.
     
  8. Freemason9
    Offline

    Freemason9 Gold Member

    Joined:
    Aug 14, 2012
    Messages:
    2,477
    Thanks Received:
    279
    Trophy Points:
    130
    Ratings:
    +458
    I disagree. His theory is well thought out, indeed, in regards to economic and social structures; he underestimated the growth and domination of media, however. Folks today are politically ignorant compared to a century ago. They no longer are capable of uniting for populist, progressive pro-labor movements--corporate government limits discussion based upon agendas.
     
  9. TakeAStepBack
    Offline

    TakeAStepBack Gold Member

    Joined:
    Mar 29, 2011
    Messages:
    13,935
    Thanks Received:
    1,723
    Trophy Points:
    245
    Ratings:
    +2,012
    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.
     
    • Thank You! Thank You! x 1
  10. Freemason9
    Offline

    Freemason9 Gold Member

    Joined:
    Aug 14, 2012
    Messages:
    2,477
    Thanks Received:
    279
    Trophy Points:
    130
    Ratings:
    +458
    You cited someone's opinion, TASB, to reinforce your contention. That doesn't constitute proof, though. And the fact of the matter is that Marx worked at theory on a macro level that was NOT intended to predict individual and independent actions. This entire body of work sought to find a solution to the problem of industrialism as it dehumanized working populations (the modern variant is corporate capitalism).

    Did Marx provide answers to all human economic problems? No--but nobody has. If that were the case, there would be no political disputes today over such matters.
     

Share This Page