I consider myself to have strong socialist beliefs but what I'm curious about with socialism is where would the entertainment industry go and amusement parks and what not. I feel as though they are products of capitalism only
Asketh - Anonymous
In terms of the cultural industry under socialism, I have a much clearer idea than things like amusement parks and stuff.
The socialist approach to art is a dual one. Firstly, we believe that people who devote their lives to art should have that recognised and be able to live off that. At the same time, we understand that art is a fundamentally social phenomenon, and we want to allow all people in society to participate and create art.
So how do we fulfill these purposes. Firstly, artists would probably organise themselves into collectives, based around artistic style or school or social circle or geographical location. These collectives would apply for offices, secure supplies and generally organise themselves. These collectives would also be integrated into the local community, doing community outreach, artistic and design projects, etc. This could be from painting a mural to organising a festival to teaching art classes.
As well as this, the collectives could organise themselves into a large Artists Coalition or Association, which would co-ordinate national projects, run arts schools, etc.
Multiple collectives would combine to pull off larger projects. For example, to make a feature film, several film and art collectives would have to come together, as well as writers and others, to put the film together. This would also include the support of community and worker organisations.
Would there still be an industry? Yes, in the sense that art will still be produced in combination. But it will be a far more open, creative a democratic industry.
but there is a problem here. the arts do not always take place in a collective fashion. artists are as inclined to work alone as together. we love and support collectives, but this repeated refrain by socialists/communists about arts becoming a kind of joint effort seems to contain a deeply flawed analysis of how artists actually operate.
many artists are only artists. that gives you a big skill set, but still, is that something socialism wants to curtail? everyone suddenly has to be a certain way? we don’t think it’s very socialist, but the bent of all previous revolutions has definitely favored conformity, and that is a direct assault on the arts.
also when it comes to multitasking, for example, many artists can’t teach, or don’t want to. many artists are self taught and want to continue doing things on their own. many artists are writers, and writing is not a work done by committee. many artists use their art to communicate with the world because they are, inherently, anti-social, and socialism doesn’t really allow for this kind of individualism or coping mechanism, does it?
what we are trying to say is, socialism seems to run right up against one aspect of humanity on a regular basis, and that is the desire for many people to do things ALONE.
keep in mind, we are socialists, and have been for decades! and we are artists, and love other artists! but if there is a deeply problematic area for us when it comes to socialism/communism, it is where the arts are concerned. it does not escape our attention that within attempted socialist/communists states (imperfect as they were, and ultimately unsuccessful as most of them were), artists still tend(ed) to work outside the socialist construct, not within it. just as many artists work outside the capitalist construct even now.
one question is, does socialism respect the unique process of art? historically it has not (no more than capitalism does.) theoretically there also doesn’t seem to be a lot of room for art under socialism. there’s this weird idea that “oh, everyone is creative, everyone is naturally an artist, everyone will be able to do their hobbies etc. come the revolution”, but that fails to take into account those of us who are absolutely NOT hobbyists (nothing wrong with hobbyists! but it’s not the same thing!), who are driven to create, and who don’t want to do it as a sideline the way we are forced so often to do it under capitalism now.
another question is, if a musician wants to play guitar with some friends and turns out to be brilliant and people want to hear them, how does that musician get recompensed under a socialist system? what is the value on that? or if a writer spends twenty years laboring over a brilliant book, and all that while is working but not producing anything in the technical sense, how is that recompensed under socialism? is it really any better than capitalism if you end up struggling just as hard as a writer and in the end there is still no security and no reward of any kind because you didn’t make something other people can see?
a third question is, since the arts are as much about failure as they are about success, how do people get the room to fail under a socialist system? (this might apply to science/medicine as well, actually, except if someone fails after trying to write a book for twenty years, most people just think Oh, a loser, but if you fail at an experiment or at a cure, it’s seen differently.)
this is long, but a primary concern to us. we believe that these solutions could evolve within the revolution, but if no one even asks the questions or contemplates them, we’re not sure how.