Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Socialism From A Musicians Perspective

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

    Socialism From A Musicians Perspective

    This will probably get moved but I don't give a fuck. If you stand back and look at it writing, performing and distributing music in the present age is Socialism in action. Actually it's better put as "Anarcho Socialism" in action. Socialism from the perspective of that it's a group of people working for a common aim in a non exploitive mutually beneficial way. "Anarcho" short for Anarchy which simply means without regulation or any type of government interference the only contract is a social one that the community sees fit.

    This model works from the microcosm of playing in a band, through building an audience, to building a scene, to the macrocosm of distributing your music online. It all fits. Rather than try to fit it all into one wall of text post I'm going to make a post regarding one aspect respond to a few responses then hit the next stage, take a few responses etc.

    Let's start with a band. For my example I'll use the basic rock band format of guitar, bass, drums, and front man. Each has their prescribed duties all play their part to make the whole work. The drummer provides the pulse, the guitarist provides the harmonic framework, the bassist is the bridge that holds it together and the front man is the focal point. All are equally important. If one part fails it all fails. Unless you're James Brown fining the band for mistakes or Fela Kuti actually issuing corporal punishment this is largely a social contract not a financial one.

    But it goes one step further there's the sacrifice of ones ego for the greater good. What you may personally think sounds good could be detrimental to the whole structure of the music. So you have to back off from what your personal sense of self and to contribute to the greater good (to put it in non musical terms PUT ON YOUR FUCKING MASK ASSHOLE).

    Then there's musical/extramusical skills that make the whole thing a success. Within that small group you may have someone who's a great songwriter, someone who's good at art and graphic design, someone who's good at logistics (scheduling, making sure that everyone's in place at the right time etc), and that one dude who has the gift of gab he can sell ice cubes to Inuits, he can be found having drinks with fans and passing the bowl after the show. All are important. More to come.....

    C/S,
    Rev J


    #2
    Why would it be moved?

    Comment


    • Rev J
      Rev J commented
      Editing a comment
      I'm at work right now but plan on writing another post later.

    • Sooz
      Sooz commented
      Editing a comment
      If BBB and ill duce get to this it will be trolled. That's what he's worried about.

    • Rev J
      Rev J commented
      Editing a comment
      Ill Duce already found it and was remarkably civil.

    #3
    The way I see it, a small local band is an example of free market economics done right. The government doesn't decide who can form a band, or when, where, and what they play; the open market decides. If nobody wants to come to your shows, you have to make changes or give it up. Nobody ever tells a music fan they have to pay for something they don't want to hear. If you suck and you emptied out the venue, the owner of the bar or club won't hire you to play there again. If you're talented and work hard and deliver quality performances, the common people will reward you with their money and you get to continue doing what you want to do.

    If you move up the ladder, that's when the wheels start coming off and you start getting victimized by big capitalism at its worst. You have to deal with agents, big venue owners, promoters, record companies, and radio stations that will fuck you over any way they can. It's one of the worst industries in America.

    I've long thought that small capitalism is good and big capitalism is bad. Free choice in an open market is good until the money gets big enough that it starts bringing out the worst in people and attracting the wrong people; people who aren't there mostly just to do something that they care about.

    Comment


      #4
      Exactly which is what Socialism aims for. Part of the problem is that at least from an American perspective when we hear the word "Socialism" we think "Authoritarianism" or "Totalitarianism". It is small market capitalism but also a group working together for an aim. The workers own and control the means of production and distribution. From there it moves to the larger community.

      More on this later.

      C/S,
      Rev J

      Comment


        #5
        Ok. I promised more to come.

        Performing and building a following. Outside of the preparation of getting a working unit together usually a band has different members who are good at extra musical endeavors. One might have the gift of gab, one might be a social media guy etc.

        There's a lot of extraneous shit that goes into booking and promoting shows how you interact both online and off is important. Usually the guy with social skills and is a good salesman is the guy who gets the band gigs. He's also usually the guy who hangs out later and makes audience members feel like they are part of something bigger which will convince them to bring friends to the next show and build the audience. The logistics guy is usually the one to make the show happen, the songwriters come up with the material etc. Then they all work together to put on the show.

        The other part is from to borrow a military term "Gathering Intelligence" getting to know which clubs are friendly what club owners are dishonest etc. It's also about creating comradery and a bigger community working towards the same goal. This is also where the first stage of "Gig Trading" comes in. Gig Trading is where different bands with different followings book gigs and recommend each other as opening acts. I've learned from experience that it is easier to book a bill than it is to book a band. For example it's easier to go to a club owner and say "I have 3 bands ready to play when do you have an open night?" then "I have a band when do you have an open slot?"

        Again from the line up of bands it becomes a social contract as to who goes on when etc. It still is socialism from the perspective of a group of people working together for a common aim. From this perspective you have collective negotiating power. It's amazing the parallels this has with community organizing. Actually that's what it is.

        C/S,
        Rev J

        Comment


          #6
          But as you say the parallels are also so clear because you look from this perspective specifically. Isn't it just as easy to see the parallels with small capitalism as Karen J put it? Or perhaps a combi of both, seems even more accurate.
          Also, as you make it sound now, it seems community organizing isn't possible if we look at it from a small (or mixed, or other) capitalistic perspective. Not sure if you mean it like that?

          Comment


            #7
            Originally posted by Din Djarin View Post
            But as you say the parallels are also so clear because you look from this perspective specifically. Isn't it just as easy to see the parallels with small capitalism as Karen J put it? Or perhaps a combi of both, seems even more accurate.
            Also, as you make it sound now, it seems community organizing isn't possible if we look at it from a small (or mixed, or other) capitalistic perspective. Not sure if you mean it like that?
            Socialism in and of itself is a blend of Capitalism and Communism.

            Americans don't understand what socialism is. How it was described to me in high school is in Socialism an individual owns a business but the government tells them how to run it. Generally the group acts for the common good. This is also how community organizing works. That's also why a lot of organizers study Marx. Marx was an economist not a political philosopher.

            The problem is that what has been called "Communism" historically has been "Totalitarianism" and "Authoritarianism". This is why it doesn't really work on a large scale but smaller commune types of communities do work like the Kibbutz in Israel. There are also Anarchist communes in various places I've been to like in Germany and Oakland. All that means is that even though there are rules there's no "State" so to speak the people who live there govern themselves.

            C/S,
            Rev J

            Comment


              #8
              Originally posted by Rev J View Post
              in Socialism an individual owns a business but the government tells them how to run it.

              Good luck finding talented, smart people who want to start new businesses under those conditions.

              Comment


                #9
                I feel socialism on itself is a too broad term to assume without specificying in advance that the other person is talking exactly about the same thing as you. Many people think primarily about Marx when confronted with the term, and others already assume it is understood as a term for a mixed economy/political system. This is not solely because most americans have been traditionally misled about socialism and equate it with communism (which seems like they indeed do).

                Comment


                  #10
                  Originally posted by Karen J View Post


                  Good luck finding talented, smart people who want to start new businesses under those conditions.
                  Since I have an interest in the history of censorship here's an interesting bit of history from 1980's England.

                  There is a list of about 70 or so horror movies referred as "Video Nasties" that were banned in England when the VCR first became available. Most were low budget Italian movies. The became banned due to a certain group of concerned citizens who were trying to find a link between said films and the rise of violent crime in England. Kinda like the what the PMRC was doing with music in the US at the same time. Rather than blaming societal problems they blamed the movies.

                  Here's how it connects to "English Socialism" (kinda weird to be using a term from George Orwells "1984" in this context"):

                  In order to stimulate the economy and the rise of small businesses in England the government was giving grants to people wanting to start small businesses. The VCR had just come out and most Brits didn't own one yet so people would build video stores in their garages using the money that the got from the government to buy a half dozen VCRs that they could rent out and set up a couple of racks of tapes. Since most of these small business owners couldn't afford the few blockbusters that were available at the time they got what was cheap and more easily available which was mostly cheap horror movies. Some of them like "Cannibal Holocaust" which faced controversy when it was first released in Italy that led the director to be brought up on murder charges since it was one of the first found footage films and promoted as a snuff film. (I'm trying to keep that one brief so I don't venture too far off topic).

                  So rather than looking at the bigger picture of poor economy, and certain social conditions a group of concerned citizens blamed the violent horror movies that had become more widely available:

                  (Sources):

                  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Video_nasty

                  https://bloody-disgusting.com/editor...video-nasties/

                  C/S,
                  Rev J

                  Comment


                    #11
                    Socialism rules.

                    Comment


                      #12
                      Originally posted by neonspectraltoast View Post
                      Socialism rules.

                      It will be great to give all our power to the ruling class.
                      Pretty sure my ancestors came to America to get away from a country of Nobles, and Plebes.
                      And now we are going back in time once again. Because the Global Cabal says we will.
                      Socialism has not succeeded anywhere. Not for the citizens, anyhoo.

                      Comment


                        #13
                        It would be a terrible shame if all the power was in the hands of a ruling class. We must stop universal healthcare at all costs.

                        Comment


                          #14
                          Originally posted by Amerijuanican View Post


                          It will be great to give all our power to the ruling class.
                          Pretty sure my ancestors came to America to get away from a country of Nobles, and Plebes.
                          And now we are going back in time once again. Because the Global Cabal says we will.
                          Socialism has not succeeded anywhere. Not for the citizens, anyhoo.
                          This is Fox News hogwash. Just like in any economic/political system there isn't black and white but shades of grey. What has been held up as "Socialism" and horrendous is actually Totalitarianism and Authoritarianism.

                          We aren't going back to that system because of any type of "Global Cabal". Actually that system just got transformed and never really went away. Robber Barrons, Old Money, and exploitative labor arrangements have always existed in the US. Sanders talked openly about "Democratic Socialism" the model that he based it on is Scandinavia, which if you look at them vs the United States in terms of quality of life, shorter work days, better pay, more vacation/leisure time, free medical, and education/job training etc. Add to that a higher general sense of contentment.

                          The really fucked up part of "American Conservatism" at this point is that we are being fed this almost Orwellian concept of the wealthy being victims. The whole rallying cry of "Why should we make the rich who work so hard pay more taxes" is fucking absurd.

                          If we are to believe what the economists tell us the rich are where they are due to "Goods and Services". OK great. Let's use that model to argue for raising the poor and middle class. If the poor and middle class have more money to spend on the goods and services that the rich provide than the rich will get more money back. Pretty basic shit. If the rich pay more taxes that fund programs for education, health care, and job training, then they don't have to pay for employee benefits, and will get more skilled workers, which should lead to innovation, which should lead to new goods and services, which will make them more money. Everybody wins.

                          I know I keep bringing up Wal-Mart. But ponder this for a moment they are a multi-billion dollar a year corporation. They give their executives unbelievable bonuses every year. Yet the grunt employees, the ones that stock the shelves, bag your items, take them to your car etc are low paid and due to labor laws which state if you work over a certain number of hours that you are entitled to benefits work less hours than they can get benefits for. Due to that combination of factors a lot of them end up on state medical, county aid and EBT (food stamps). That means that your tax dollars are being used to give them what their employers should. What's the name for that again? Oh yeah large scale Socialism. But what makes Wal-Mart especially evil is how they generally move into an area, price low enough to close down competition, then the only place they have to spend those benefits that you pay for with tax money is Wal-Mart (Move 16 tons and what do ya get/Another day older and deeper in debt/Say Saint Peter don't hold open the door/'Cause I owe my soul to the company store).

                          Now let's add insult to injury. Now we have automated check out lines. There's more people that they don't have to pay. More people by no fault of their own that are living on your dime. While we're on the subject of automation remember all of that shit Trump was spouting about bringing manufacturing jobs back to the US. Guess what. Most of that is automated too. That isn't going to increase the work force much without training people who to run the machines. I remember when I was a kid visiting some of my dads friends in Michigan during the 80's when Detroit was still king in the auto industry. My dad's friend worked in the factory at Ford. I remember the newscaster saying "Will robots take your job?" and semi sarcastically asking him that question (I had a pretty sophisticated sense of humor for an 8 year old). He looked at me and said "No. I fix the robots."

                          So right now we are at a point where unskilled labor is approaching it's twilight. Our educational system hasn't caught up, and we don't really have the budget to catch it up with the systems in place. The days of someone with a 10th grade education being able to actually own a house are gone. Even most "Home Owners" have bought into the lie that they own their homes. As long as you are making mortgage payments you don't own your home. The Bank owns your home. You just pay them for the privilege of saying that you own your home.

                          In the meantime you have the Neo-Conservatives telling you that "Socialism doesn't work and has never worked" in spite of the fact that if you ignore the Authoritarian and Totalitarian regimes labeled as "Socialist" you see that's a big lie.

                          Even though this is coming from a comedian I think this bit explains socialism quite well:



                          C/S,
                          Rev J

                          Comment

                          Working...
                          X