But the second point is where the problems begin. If a person creates a product that is ethical in its own right, meaning they aren’t selling something like water rights, where is the limit drawn for what they can receive for their work? For example, in the case of a concert, if the venue staff, support network, and community are properly compensated for their own labour and input, but the artist still makes millions off of that one appearance, why should they not be allowed to keep what they have made? Essentially, if an artist is able to make several lifetimes of labour value in a single concert (which itself is rare), then so what?
Further, how do you define the artist’s, singer’s, painter’s, comedian’s, etc’s labour time? Wouldn’t that be extremely contradictory to the entire purpose of the subjective value of art? Of course no artist should starve, but if one becomes wildly successful, is it their fault?
If people are willing to give up the amount asked for the art, is it really theft or unethical? It is not a human necessity to go to a specific artist’s concert, and no one is forcing you at gunpoint to pay up. It’s not like water rights being held hostage by a corporation, which people will die without.
Essentially, if an artist is able to make several lifetimes of labour value in a single concert (which itself is rare), then so what?
Further, how do you define the artist’s, singer’s, painter’s, comedian’s, etc’s labour time?
The same way we define all workers hours in the labor theory of value, by hours worked. You work 5 hours? You get paid 5 hours, and can exchange it for 5 hours worth of goods / services from the pool. This becomes much simpler when you use labor time, and not other abstractions, as the primary unit of account, and as this pool of labor being conserved and finite, unlike value theories that allow you to create and destroy value out of thin air.
Why should the .000001% of entertainers gain 50k hours of labor value for every one of ours worked? That is nothing more than theft from the finite pool of labor. Even if you don’t believe in labor time equality, then at the most you should put a cap on the multiplier to something like <10x.
If people are willing to give up the amount asked for the art, is it really theft or unethical?
Absolutely it is. Most musicians, artists, etc can’t make enough to survive, so there is no reason that we should be justifying all the value going towards that tiny percentile of entertainers who capitalist media has dubbed worthy to promote and funnel all the value towards.
You work 5 hours? You get paid 5 hours, and can exchange it for 5 hours worth of goods / services from the pool.
Has any AES to date considered all labor hours to be of equivalent value, or even made it an aspirational goal? If you personally think that should be the ultimate goal, you’re welcome to propose it after the revolution has fully succeeded.
I completely agree with you for that first point.
But the second point is where the problems begin. If a person creates a product that is ethical in its own right, meaning they aren’t selling something like water rights, where is the limit drawn for what they can receive for their work? For example, in the case of a concert, if the venue staff, support network, and community are properly compensated for their own labour and input, but the artist still makes millions off of that one appearance, why should they not be allowed to keep what they have made? Essentially, if an artist is able to make several lifetimes of labour value in a single concert (which itself is rare), then so what?
Further, how do you define the artist’s, singer’s, painter’s, comedian’s, etc’s labour time? Wouldn’t that be extremely contradictory to the entire purpose of the subjective value of art? Of course no artist should starve, but if one becomes wildly successful, is it their fault?
If people are willing to give up the amount asked for the art, is it really theft or unethical? It is not a human necessity to go to a specific artist’s concert, and no one is forcing you at gunpoint to pay up. It’s not like water rights being held hostage by a corporation, which people will die without.
The same way we define all workers hours in the labor theory of value, by hours worked. You work 5 hours? You get paid 5 hours, and can exchange it for 5 hours worth of goods / services from the pool. This becomes much simpler when you use labor time, and not other abstractions, as the primary unit of account, and as this pool of labor being conserved and finite, unlike value theories that allow you to create and destroy value out of thin air.
Why should the .000001% of entertainers gain 50k hours of labor value for every one of ours worked? That is nothing more than theft from the finite pool of labor. Even if you don’t believe in labor time equality, then at the most you should put a cap on the multiplier to something like <10x.
Absolutely it is. Most musicians, artists, etc can’t make enough to survive, so there is no reason that we should be justifying all the value going towards that tiny percentile of entertainers who capitalist media has dubbed worthy to promote and funnel all the value towards.
Has any AES to date considered all labor hours to be of equivalent value, or even made it an aspirational goal? If you personally think that should be the ultimate goal, you’re welcome to propose it after the revolution has fully succeeded.