textfiles/bbs/FIDONET/JENNINGS/POLITICS/commie.art.txt

* You Love State Socialism (You just don't know it)
Tom Jennings 1:125/111

The essay below speaks for itself. It's not an exercise in<69>
commie-bashing, in case you were wondering. Taken from a book of<6F>
essays written by Miklos Haraszti, a Hungarian dissident, it is<69>
on the surface a harsh criticism of state socialism, told in<69>
terms of western capitalism.

(The manuscript for the book was smuggled out of Hungary, to be<62>
published first in France as "L'artiste d'Etat" then as "The<68>
Velvet Prison: Artists Under State Socialism" in the U.S. (Basic<69>
Books Inc, New York).)

                         *  *  *

"Outside the capitalist corporation's walls there is still an<61>
ideal free market where total freedom of opinion and speech, the<68>
right to assembly, and the freedom to organize flourish. Everyone<6E>
goes his own way and can become a proud and independent artist,<2C>
free of censorship. But inside the company it is a different<6E>
story. There; the employee must reckon with a microcosm of<6F>
socialism. His human rights are severely circumscribed -- except<70>
of course, his right to work. He cannot go outside the walls,<2C>
cannot wander at will around the factory, cannot say, write or<6F>
organize whatever he wants. In these matters, it is the firm's<>
interests, conveyed by its owners and managers, that determine<6E>
right from wrong within the corporate culture. The employee may<61>
love his work, but he cannot do what he likes *unless* his ideas<61>
have first been approved by his superiors. His skills have no<6E>
value in themselves; they exists to sustain the fiscal health of<6F>
the corporation. His relations with other members of the company<6E>
are not strictly private; they are defined by the hierarchy of<6F>
professional skills. If he does not live for his work, the<68>
company will let him go. As long as there are other corporations<6E>
for whom he can work, he is all right, even if he is fired. He<48>
could even, if he wishes, leave of his own accord!

"How is this (admittedly simplified) state of affairs different<6E>
from state socialism? Only one aspect is truly different: the<68>
existence of other companies. Under socialism it is the same<6D>
giant firm everywhere.

"Suppose that the company for which you work buys and sells art.<2E>
The board of directors, faithful to the owner's wishes, seeks<6B>
free and independent art. Anyone can come in from the street. If<49>
his art is marketable, the whole company will work for him; no<6E>
one will intervene in his business. If his artistic freedom is<69>
curtailed, he can threaten to leave the company and look for<6F>
another, or he can choose to become self-employed.

"Now consider the free artist who is asked by the company to<74>
paint a portrait of the owner, or to create a sculpture that<61>
symbolizes the company's ideals, or simply say something nice<63>
about the firm on television. The money he is paid is not a part<72>
of profits; it is renumeration for having complied with the ideas<61>
of the firm's management. Creative freedom has undergone a subtle<6C>
change: the more successfully the artist has identified himself<6C>
and his ideas with the interests of management, the more creative<76>
freedom he can retain. He has become a *directed artist*. He has<61>
become a company artist.

"How is this state of affairs different from socialism? Only to<74>
the extent that, under capitalism, the artist is free to resign<67>
and go to another company. On our part of the world artists can<61>
only find employment with the artistic department of the national<61>
company or with one if its branches. All artists are the firm's<>
employees, and their colleagues (the other employees in other<65>
departments and branches) are their audience.

"The distinction between directed and free artists, between<65>
directed and free art, disappears at a stroke. The artists'<27>
existential uncertainty is over. A steady paycheck is assured.<2E>
The rent will be paid, food on the table, and a roof overhead.<2E>
But artists' creative freedom is also over. Nevertheless they<65>
have gained a great deal: by becoming state employees they are<72>
given special attention. Their position is not competitive but<75>
hierarchical: they gain a measure of control over the consumers<72>
of their art in exchange for being controlled themselves by the<68>
coordinating authority of the state. The company's neutrality in<69>
the thorny question of aesthetics is over.

"The ethics of state socialism resemble the ethics of a large<67>
company. Its discipline and freedom are like those of the<68>
company's workers. Further, if you will imagine the greatest<73>
possible "industrial democracy" that such a concern might achieve<76>
within the constraints of its corporate culture, you will have<76>
arrived at an almost exact model of freedom in today's modern<72>
socialist society.

"Is it censorship that guarantees that the employees of Twentieth<74>
Century Fox will create movies that serve the interests of the<68>
entire company? Do relationships within the film studio require<72>
censoring? Is the unavoidable process of creative compromise and<6E>
self-correction properly called censorship? Voluntary discipline,<2C>
identification, and devotion are essential elements in the<68>
professional's acceptance of the company as his own/ Is this not<6F>
freedom? After all, didn't someone once observe that freedom is<69>
simply the recognition of necessity?

"It does not matter whether the answer is yes or no: we know what<61>
this is all about. This form of censorship is far more effective<76>
than a negative, externally imposed restriction of private<74>
freedom. It is quite irresistible when it bathes the employees of<6F>
the socialist supermonopoly -- the nation -- in its amniotic<69>
warmth. Don't forget: under socialism, there are no longer any<6E>
owners."