dO YoU ThInK YoU'Ll bE A PoEt oR ArTiSt iN A CoMmUnIsT PlAcE?? YoU'Ll bE A WoRkEr. Oh wAiT, yOu'rE NoT OnE UnDeR CaPiTaLiSm eItHeR? oH WeLl, StIlL , LeFt bAd.
To be fair, how many historians etc do you need to qualify every year?
What's the point of studying something for years, getting in to dozens of thousands in student debt, potentially getting near the top of your field and then having to go work in a Starbucks because there are so few vacancies in your field?
I agree that these degrees are nice to have, but we should be honest with students in regards to the sort of lifestyle they can expect after they qualify.
Yeah, exactly. Capitalism sucks. Your example is perfect. It kills the future of anyone interested in learning from the past. Learning from the past is key to a functional humanity.
No system of government, with a capitalist economy or otherwise, is inherently incompatible with, or inherently supportive of people being employed by or receiving grants from national institutes for arts/sciences or other similar organizations, public or private.
If a country is lacking in that regard it's not the fault of their economic system. It's due to the values of the people in power. And in the case of a democracy, it's partially due to the values of the voters as well.
In my country, public and private funding for arts and sciences without a profit motive has been on the decline for decades and I would love to see huge increases. But no matter what the system is, there are limits. Everybody can't be an artist, scientist, or philosopher. A large portion of people are going to have to produce necessities.
Being able to chase your dreams is no guarantee you will be good enough to catch one of the limited slots, even if the number of slots is high.
If a country is lacking in that regard it's not the fault of their economic system. It's due to the values of the people in power. And in the case of a democracy, it's partially due to the values of the voters as well.
This is idealism, and I don't mean the concept of having ideals. I am referring to the branch of philosophy that believes thoughts shape matter, rather than matter shaping thoughts.
The problem here is that you seem to believe that society is driven by "great men" rather than material conditions. The issue is not because of random cultural values or politicians, but the underlying material reality as shaped by the economic system.
Don't put words in my mouth to make me fit one of your cookie cutter fake opponents, dealing with whom seems to be the only thing your theory reading has prepared you for.
There is nothing stopping funding levels from returning to the level they once were other than the will of the people with the power to do so and the will of the people that put them there and allow them to remain. We know this because we've already done it, in many places with a variety of underlying systems. We did it where I live for quite a while before the last few decades of reversals.
That's a nonsensical thing to say. Everything that's ever been done by anyone has been done because the person(s) doing so had the will to do it. From making lunch to toppling a government.
If your world view is some kind of circular human centipede of tautological alternate definitions that doesn't allow for any discussions that don't accept your conclusions a priori then talking to you isn't likely to be any more fruitful than a discussion with a Qultist or a MAGAt.
Again, you're putting words in my mouth to argue against an imaginary person because that's all you can do. Save that shit for the shower.
I never said there weren't conditions that create the will. There are always conditions for everything. My condition is hungry so when I'm done typing this I'll eat a banana because I have the will to do so.
I've read plenty of leftist theory. But unfortunately your reading has only prepared you to hammer anything you run across into the circles you seem to be unable to think outside of.
If any discussion with you requires one to accept your reading of theory that labels as impossible something that has already been accomplished, many times, that's not theory, that's dogma that ignores reality, and you're in a cult.
Banana calls, you can have the last word. Imagine me dumbfounded and humbled by your brilliance, just like in the shower.
I don't disagree with what you're saying, but whether you live in a capitalist, socialist, communist or what ever other types of economic systems are available, you need to be intellectually honest about what types of workers the society needs to be able thrive.
How many historians do you want qualified before you would say, "maybe we should incentivise people in to things like medicine or engineering", a hundred thousand, a million?
Of course history is important, but there's clearly a sensible limit to how many job opportunities there are for curators, archeologists, researchers, teachers etc.
In the UK, more or less fifty percent of young people have a uni level of education but there are not fifty percent of vacant jobs that require a degree level education. It might be absolute lovely that my barista has a history degree, but they could have joined the workforce several years earlier, have dozens of thousands pounds less in debt and still had the opportunity to study history in their own time.
No it doesn't. I asked what non-capitalist countries allow you to chase the OP's dreams and you're just asking me a bunch of questions about my opinion of the existence of colleges, and art appreciation.
But OK let's suppose I have to answer your questions before I can get an answer to mine. Same answer for both: actually it's not something I've ever thought about. But I could find out fairly easily, the first anyway, given a list of socialist countries I could do a quick web search to find out if they have colleges. They probably do, but I couldn't name any at the moment. I think it would be tricky to find out whether or not A&H are appreciated under socialism; I don't see any reason why they shouldn't be but I couldn't point to anything that gives an indication one way or another.
Your answer now please: a list of countries where I could, if I lived and so desired, chase those dreams without the limitations of capitalism.
So this socialism thing then is totally hypothetical? That no country in the world implements it?
The original post rails against capitalism, and at least implies that things would be better under socialism, but that can't be true if socialism doesn't actually exist.
It has a limit. Lots of talented artists out there still looking for jobs. I know someone looking for a while and they worked on Archer(backgrounds and layout artwork).
As in the amount who can successfully pursue jobs in that field that pay enough to live off of. Even education jobs are having a hard time with pay.
Some types of art appear to look great because of those in the field who are hugely successful, but for every successful pop star or diva, how many people keep trying to make music, make something decent but don't get off the ground? Indie music has its place, but a lot of really successful artists are connected to the industry by family or friends etc, same with a lot of acting talent nowadays.
You could argue other jobs have similar limits but they're usually much more dense.
I keep saying this to conservatives: what do they think will happen if there is oversaturation of "useful" jobs? They do not want an educated population, they want a dumbed down and compliant one who are unquestionably obedient.
There are capitalist countries in which tuition is free, so I don't know if we can blame this on capitalism. Then again, most likely you're still going to have a lot of other expenses like rent, food and possibly also books and stuff, so in that case UBI would be great.
Free public tuition, like we have in Norway, is a non-capitalist component of an otherwise capitalist society. Paid higher education, like in the US, is a capitalist component of an otherwise capitalist society.
Actually this is the result of strong and convincing left parties and the fear of conservatives that communism might get more approval. At least in Germany.
I'd argue that free tuition is a proper capitalist component of a democratic country. Your government is pretty much a capitalist corporation, you pay your fees to the government in the form of taxes and you demand specific services to be provided for that fee. And if the government refuses to provide some service of specific quality, you vote a different government in. That's pure capitalism at play.
It's just that some countries don't have neither proper functioning democracy nor capitalism.
I've seen so many youtube videos from conservatives where they literally just listen to someone saying what their minor/emphasis was and saying "wow, it's so stupid that's even offered, that's completely useless". The comments tend to be more unhinged, I frequently see "these universities should lose their accreditation", "it should be illegal to offer these", etc. Usually it's something extremely basic, like the impact of colonialism on X, or something to do with intersectionality. Like, these aren't even their majors, they're just a component of their degrees that they can freely choose. I feel like many conservatives are just against any new ideas regardless of their validity.
guarantee I learned more about running a business trying to market a touring clown show to feed and house a team of 7 clowns than most MBAs do, because if I fucked up we all would have nowhere to sleep and nothing to eat, whereas if they fuck up a PowerPoint presentation their boss-who-is-also-their-Dad might be slightly peeved in the QBR.
Neo cons unironically love all of those degrees, at least in the US. Don't forget that student loans are a big business.
Non-occupational degrees give a steady supply of young workers with massive debt and qualifications that won't enable them to get a job with a high enough wage to pay back the principle of that debt.
This is how the gig economy flourishes.
This is how Amazon stays in business.
This is how the hospitality industry thrives on a deliberately broken business model.
This is how landlords profit.
This is how the post-boomer generations are oppressed.
It's really just a call to change by not playing by their rules, eg get a degree and then move to a jurisdiction where the loan people can't get to you, or get a degree from another country where it's less expensive.
Thus political economy – despite its worldly and voluptuous appearance – is a true moral science, the most moral of all the sciences. Self-renunciation, the renunciation of life and of all human needs, is its principal thesis. The less you eat, drink and buy books; the less you go to the theatre, the dance hall, the public house; the less you think, love, theorise, sing, paint, fence, etc., the more you save – the greater becomes your treasure which neither moths nor rust will devour – your capital. The less you are, the less you express your own life, the more you have, i.e., the greater is your alienated life, the greater is the store of your estranged being. Everything which the political economist takes from you in life and in humanity, he replaces for you in money and in wealth; and all the things which you cannot do, your money can do. It can eat and, drink, go to the dance hall and the theatre; it can travel, it can appropriate art, learning, the treasures of the past, political power – all this it can appropriate for you – it can buy all this: it is true endowment. Yet being all this, it wants to do nothing but create itself, buy itself; for everything else is after all its servant, and when I have the master I have the servant and do not need his servant. All passions and all activity must therefore be submerged in avarice.
Sometimes I think about how much art was never created because of capitalism. It either never got funded, or a potential artist never got the chance to make it, because just to scrape by, they had to spend too much time toiling to make some business owners money. It's depressing.
And, just to cut off one potential counterargument: I don't give half of a shit how "good" that art would be. I'm confident there are spectacular works of art that never came to be, but even putting it aside, it's all subjective. Some folks would have loved it, and the artists would have found value in making it. That's more than enough, and a hell of a lot more meaningful than breaking your back working for a living so that other people can own stuff for a living.
And how much crappy art was pushed to popularity just because it was more easily marketable. To be popular you have to somewhat sell out and there are probably thousands of marginalized artists no one ever discovered because of that :/
While I am not a fan of capitalism, there is something to say about everyone does what they do best. I am not an artist, but there is a lot of artists for me to enjoy and support on the internet, and for them it's easier than ever to live the life off an artist.
I was just talking about this yesterday with a friend. They're a writer with a few small published things, but they can't do it full time because they're barely scraping by with work.
Idk about other places, bit in Norway there's a requirement for a % of the budget that has to be used for art on the outside areas and lobby area on public buildings.
Almost all of it is crap. So giving away money to anyone calling themselves an artist doesn't work.
For some reason people in art believe they don't have to compete like every other individual creating a business. I've bought art and have some on my walls at home. But it's an ocean of bad or uncreative works to skim through if you want to find something you like.
Hey, that's like every other work, and people still get paid for their shit output in other fields.
There's no reason for any of us to compete to survive. Especially when the metric that determines whether one succeeds in competing is just how much money some rich fuck makes off of your efforts.
Creating art is a product which requires demand. Say you work as a graphic designer for a magazine or TV station. Then you make your money doing art just as a receptionist make money sitting behind the desk.
Being a receptionist as a freelance is a pretty shitty gig I believe. Working with art as a freelancer is actually possible. But it require a lot of networking and actual talent.
The demand for mediocre art is low. The demand for good art is high. Prices on popular works increase fast.
Wait. Define good and mediocre, first. Then, please, adress the most important point: why should we have to compete to just survive?
Also, that kind of competition, and the inequalities that it gives birth to, benefit mostly the system and the very very very few people that are behind it, not the majority of the people.
40 hour workweek is excessive. This is based around units containing at least two adults, maybe multigenerational homes with grandparents doing childcare. Now that we expect dual incomes the workweek should be 20 hours at most before overtime kicks in.
What I am getting at is that just giving people time back to exist could happen with changes to the current system. Unfortunately that means smaller yachts for the people on top, so we cannot have it.
As a perpetually single guy I'm actually behind this. Most of the time I'm completely forgotten about and the conversation goes as if being married is the default position for everyone.
Andrei Tarkovsky is one of cinema's greatest contributors, and published his works purely during the mid-late Soviet Era. George Lucas once expressed that he felt less free in Capitalist America to make art that he wanted to than Soviet filmmakers, even with government censorship.
You are free to chase those dreams. You are free to also struggle to find employment like the rest of us. Why hamper yourself? Do things that aren't profitable but you enjoy as hobbies
Stop trying to find fulfillment at work.
The arts are a significant contributor to the UK economy. Here's a quick breakdown of their impact:
Economic output: The creative industries, which include the arts, are estimated to generate £126 billion in gross value added (GVA) to the UK economy. This represents around 5.6% of the total economy.
Employment: The creative industries employ around 2.4 million people in the UK, accounting for 7% of all filled jobs. This sector has also seen a faster recovery in employment after the pandemic compared to the rest of the economy.
No, I was simply refuting the claim that art isn't profitable. If it was up to me, art as a recreation would be what people were encouraged to do with their days instead of working for corporations.
