Art produced for a wage, for a capitalist, is productive labour. Art produced by an individual sold as commissions is not productive, I.e it produces no surplus value, the artist is paid the full value of their labour by the commissioner.
The artist hired by a capitalist already doesn’t own the outputs of their labour, and never has. Quit moralising and go and read a book.
So by your logic, a plumber isn’t doing productive labor if they fix the toilets of workers, got it. Or cooks, they don’t do productive work if they feed anyone but capitalists.
Sterling fucking logic with no holes in it. You read the book and fuck the fuck off with your high and mighty bitching.
You fundamentally misunderstand. If a wage worker is paid the exchange value of labour-power I.e the cost to reproduce themselves, at the behest of a capitalist (the work could be in the service sector, like a chef, an artist; it could also be a plumber, and they could ultimately be doing work for consumers like other workers), they produce more value than they are paid for I.e. they produce surplus value.
A self-employed plumber or a live-in chef working directly for someone with no capitalist middleman, or an artist working for commissions do not produce surplus value. They sell the final product of their labour, not their labour itself, and they charge the going market rate for the product of their labour, not the going market rate for their labour-power by the hour.
An artist can be proletarian or petit-bourgeois. A chef can also be either, as can a plumber.
Your time would be better spent reading and studying Capital than professing your shoddy home-baked anti-capitalism online.
Yeah turns out, (pretty much) everyone disagreeing with me doesn’t know how to do a class analysis. I thought the opinion was going to be an argument for collaboration with creative PB, not just a complete incomprehension that artists benefitting from copyright are definitionally benefitting as PB
Art produced for a wage, for a capitalist, is productive labour. Art produced by an individual sold as commissions is not productive, I.e it produces no surplus value, the artist is paid the full value of their labour by the commissioner.
The artist hired by a capitalist already doesn’t own the outputs of their labour, and never has. Quit moralising and go and read a book.
So by your logic, a plumber isn’t doing productive labor if they fix the toilets of workers, got it. Or cooks, they don’t do productive work if they feed anyone but capitalists.
Sterling fucking logic with no holes in it. You read the book and fuck the fuck off with your high and mighty bitching.
It’s Marx’s logic actually.
You fundamentally misunderstand. If a wage worker is paid the exchange value of labour-power I.e the cost to reproduce themselves, at the behest of a capitalist (the work could be in the service sector, like a chef, an artist; it could also be a plumber, and they could ultimately be doing work for consumers like other workers), they produce more value than they are paid for I.e. they produce surplus value.
A self-employed plumber or a live-in chef working directly for someone with no capitalist middleman, or an artist working for commissions do not produce surplus value. They sell the final product of their labour, not their labour itself, and they charge the going market rate for the product of their labour, not the going market rate for their labour-power by the hour.
An artist can be proletarian or petit-bourgeois. A chef can also be either, as can a plumber.
Your time would be better spent reading and studying Capital than professing your shoddy home-baked anti-capitalism online.
Yeah turns out, (pretty much) everyone disagreeing with me doesn’t know how to do a class analysis. I thought the opinion was going to be an argument for collaboration with creative PB, not just a complete incomprehension that artists benefitting from copyright are definitionally benefitting as PB