>>463361>This is literally insane pshycobable
My deepest apologies, anon. English is not my first language, you see, so I tend to express myself in a quite uncanny way.>What do you mean by how would art be "valued in communism?"
Clearly, I am talking here about the economic aspects of value, because I am talking about an economic theory (i.e. the marxist economic theory). In other words, I rhetorically asked how would you pay an artist in a communist society? By the number of books he sells? He will become extremely rich. What about an actor, then? On the number of movies he is part of? Can he contract his salary? What if he is famous? In that case, he would have such a bargaining power, that he will make the film director go broke! Also, how will movies be made? Will the proles have a whip-round for the film?
Last example: what if I don't wanna work. I will say I work as an artist, specifically a trap artist, and publish one album each month. Will I be entitled to receive a pay for it? What if I suck?>this creates a system of alienation where people become further and further from one another because any time you are not producing profits or generating profits in some way is time spent not making money for the capitalist overlords.
Why would isolation be an effect of capitalism? From my perspective, capitalism tries to reroute social interations through means that will produce profit, not reduce their numbers. As we can see, social networks have increased to such an extent social interactions, that the apocalyptic future described by John B. Calhoun doesn't seem so distant after all.>What you are saying makes no sense and is frankly kind of silly.
And yet you agree with me by saying:>Media as it exists today is used as a means to enforce the capitalist hegemony.
I have to point out that we (you and me) actually disagree on one thing. I argued in my previous post that media can be used to enforce any political ideology hegemony, not only the capitalist one. For media stands for mass media, which is a mode of mass communication. But communication of what, you might ask? I argue it started out as a mean to transfer informations to a (throughout history) progressively large audience (first it was the bourgeoisie, then the proletariat, then both of them considered together, etc. ). This characteristic is still to this day key to define what mass media means. Such characteristic, in my opinion, will translate in a communist society, while other key features present in the mass media of the capitalist societies (like propaganda) will be eliminated in the "communist-type" mass media.>Building socialism is something that is done by the masses
I partially disagree: socialism will be built by the masses under the direction of certain people who will coordinate the work. How would you otherwise build a factory? Will you rely on a hivemind? I hope not.
You need not only the directors in this deed, but a strong IS (cfr. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Information_system
, for an introductory page on the topic) that will adjuvate the directors in their operation. The IS, if considered in a broader setting of society as a whole, corresponds to mass media.>there's little reason to believe that anyone retard would have any attention paid to him.
Let me specify: you are saying that retards will not be paid attention to? I have to go a little bit of topic now, but how do you explain Gorbachev then? With all the due respect, he and Yeltsin were a little bit unstable, yet they arrived to such positions that made them considerably powerful. I agree they are not part of the media, but, especially with Yeltsin, people voted for him because he was a very public figure.
Honestly, I consider them both glowie's assets, which reached a point where they could condition proles into thinking that private property's what they (the proles) needed.
Why wouldn't in the media sector happen what happened in the political sector of USSR?