• autismdragon [he/him, they/them]@hexbear.netOP
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    11
    ·
    1 year ago

    Residuals are not fair compensation for labor because they are not proportionate to work done.

    I really dont think this concept can be fairly applied to something like media that gets reused by third parties though? Thats the persons labor being reused again and again with no compensation for them. This would be especially true for actors who’s actual literal faces and voices are being reused, but I think it applies to everyone who works on the product. Thats certainly why its fair compensation under capitalism.

    Under socialism it would depend on a lot of things, like how available media is, whether money is used, and whether profit has actually been completely abolished.

    Also media would of course be freely available, as was the case in the Soviet Union.

    I didnt know this about the USSR but when you look at Cuba, Vietnam, and especially China this is not the case. (DPRK idk). Pretty sure those countries still all have markets for media. And as long as someone is continuing to profit off someone’s work after the fact I would think residuals would be fair compensation for movies, music, and games. Which is the point of them as they exist now.

    Also, only socialists are reading this anyways

    Did you forget about federation?

    • RuthlessCriticism [comrade/them]@hexbear.net
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      1 year ago

      fair compensation under capitalism

      Does not exist.

      Under socialism people will be compensated for the amount of work they do, indeed we should probably replace money with labor vouchers, but that is another topic. This is the abolition of the extraction of surplus value, no one gets unearned income (note that support for the old, young, and disabled would still exist, subject to democratic consent). For an actor to be paid residuals (under socialism) they must necessarily be taken (unjustly) from another worker, or more precisely the whole mass of the working class which do not have the privileged of getting such payments.

      China today is of course a different question since they have a market economy. I don’t know about Cuba but I would be surprised if they had a significantly different system from the USSR.

      • autismdragon [he/him, they/them]@hexbear.netOP
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        10
        ·
        1 year ago

        *relatively fair, more fair than what is currently happening, ect. Sorry I wasn’t precise.

        For an actor to be paid residuals (under socialism) they must necessarily be taken (unjustly) from another worker, or more precisely the whole mass of the working class which do not have the privileged of getting such payments.

        I think you’re being overly orthodox over things that did not or barely existed in Marx or Lenin’s times here. Basically I think you’re continuing to artfully dodge the fact that these people’s labor is being reused for profit under a system like China’s. (I’ll drop the Cuba and Vietnam point because I don’t actually know for sure either, though I think both still incorporate markets to an extent? Like Cuba has tourism for profit. And I do know for sure that neither has abolished intellectual property.). With things like reruns, theater plays, radio plays, and now streaming services, the labor of workers is being recycled for profit. That doesn’t go away until profit and markets for media are completely abolished. As long as they do then all the workers involved should be getting residuals to compensate for that recycling of their labor.

          • axont [she/her, comrade/them]@hexbear.net
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            7
            ·
            edit-2
            1 year ago

            Radio dramas didn’t exist until the 1920s. Marx died in 1883 when electromagnetic waves themselves were just a hypothesis. The first experimental radio signals were done by Heinrich Hertz in 1886. The first radio broadcast with audio didn’t happen until 1906.

            Marx was an avid Shakespeare fan if that counts. I think he mentioned Christopher Marlowe a few times too.

            • Egon [they/them]@hexbear.net
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              6
              ·
              edit-2
              1 year ago

              I think u/Thomasmuentzer is pretty knowledgeable about Marx, though the last time I saw him talk of Marx and artists it was about them being part of a third “artisan” class. It had something to do with ai…

              I’ll ask in the mega and tag you if I get anything

        • RuthlessCriticism [comrade/them]@hexbear.net
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          3
          ·
          1 year ago

          I’m not sure what you mean by labor is recycled for profit. I see no difference between a worker paving a road that people drive over for 20 years and an actor making a movie which is rerun for 20 years. In Marx’s terminology there is living labor and dead labor. Living labor is the work done by workers. Dead labor is the product of work done in the past by workers, for example a sowing machine. Capital is dead labor. The actor makes the movie performing living labor and should be compensated for it. Then there exists the movie itself a form of dead labor and they should no longer be compensated for it (under socialism).

          • autismdragon [he/him, they/them]@hexbear.netOP
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            8
            ·
            1 year ago

            My point is that the movie is being recycled for profit specifically. As long as thats abolished, I agree with you I think. But if the corporation is still profiting off a living person’s labor like that, residuals seem like the way to compensate for that.

            I do agree there’s kind of a disconnect between how this is done in the entertainment industry vs other industries, but I think as long as profit is being made by “recycling labor” then ideally yes compensation should occur for that. I realize this would lead to complicated situations like, say, a private person using a sewing machine to do a craft and then selling it on etsy, do they owe the worker who made that sewing machine residuals? Its a weird road to go down. But I don’t think movies, music, and TV on streaming services are complicated in any way because thats a situation where a corporation is making money off people’s recycled labor in perpetuality, and currently those people make nothing off of that and the bosses do.

            • RuthlessCriticism [comrade/them]@hexbear.net
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              4
              ·
              edit-2
              1 year ago

              Those royalties were at rates controlled by the government and as I understand it were fairly limited. No doubt there were significant shortcomings in the USSR though, this among them. Sort of in line with the general problem of different wage rates. I believe the highest paid workers had wages about 5 times those of the lowest paid. As the Soviet Union decayed more liberalism entered its copyright system, the rate controls were lifted by Gorbachev and even before that copyright was made more restrictive with respect to translations and foreign work.