Theory: Creative Workspaces In A Democratically Planned Economy

By Ludwig Yeonan

Introduction

The reconciliation of Individualism and Democratic Economic Planning is based on a distinction between different types of labor, and how work is done and income is allocated for each type. In particular, it has been shown that creative labor must not be accounted for in an economic plan, and all should be able to partake in some regardless of consumer desires. This sets it apart from other types of labor, such as that of restaurants, which are directly concerned with the interests of others and can be termed as functional labor. The fact that creative workspaces must be considered differently means that the allocation of resources to allow for creative labor must be considered differently as well, complicating models that rely on a simple plan made by consumers and producers that engage in functional labor. This article will show how necessary resources can be allocated to creative workspaces in such a way that those who want resources for their own personal consumption can still get their desires met.

Economic Planning

We will be using the model of Participatory Economics, or Parecon, as the basis for our discussion, although we will incorporate ideas from other models when it is necessary to do so. In summary, workplaces are organized democratically by their workers, who form workers’ councils. People are also part of consumers’ councils, which are based on geography. Every year, everyone submits a plan for what they expect to consume for the coming year, and then the workers’ and consumers’ councils enter into a process of negotiation.

This model directly ties the economic plan for all resource allocation to the interests of consumers. But, as has been established, allowing art to be dictated by consumers’ interests can be problematic. So we need to find another way to allow creativity to be considered.

Recently, Hahnel looked at long-term investment and how it differs from short-term production of goods for immediate consumption by the people of society. As this results in different stages in planning, we will begin by taking a further look at his suggestions.

Hahnel’s main suggestion is that we divide the planning process into two stages. He suggests planning investment first, and then allocating the remaining resources according to the traditional planning process. Investment is to be coordinated on the national level by the workers’ and consumers’ councils. We can easily generalize this idea to include creative labor. Negotiation for creative spaces will then function as a third stage. For this to work, our distinction between functional and creative labor is necessary, as it distinguishes the workplaces and their roles in the allocation of resources.

Creative workplaces are to form their own councils, similar to the workers’ councils of functional workplaces, but not subject to the plans of consumers. Indeed, for the negotiating process to work, the role of creative councils will be similar to that of consumers’ councils, as their main role will be to negotiate for resources. The consumers’ councils must be involved in this process, so that not all labor only produces resources for use in creative workspaces, and some goods will still be produced for people to consume.

So far, no objective considerations have been established to give us a concrete idea of how many resources are to go to creative labor versus consumption vs investment.

Objective Considerations

Our distinction between functional and creative labor takes inspiration from Devine’s categorization of labor into five different categories: Leadership, Unskilled, Skilled, Creative, Caring. Devine’s assessment is part of his method for abolishing the division of labor. Note that he sees creative labor as an important piece of labor in and of itself.

Devine’s methodology would lead a reader to ask what labor should be counted as creative and what purpose it should serve. Devine’s suggestion that enterprises negotiate with all affected parties, including consumers, and engage in market exchange after the planning process is incompatible with our opposition to public control over art, but we must allow for some public oversight over funding. Nevertheless, Devine’s compulsion of creative labor implies that not only is creative labor to be valued, but that everyone will be compelled to do creative work. Whether one should be compelled to do creative labor is up for debate, but if we assume that one should, then all will be engaged in creative projects.

Consequently, as all people are creatives to some extent, there will be less qualms about allocating needed resources to creative workplaces. But surely, there will still be some concerns. Let us look at a music studio and venue as an example. Albert has used such an example in his argument that creative labor will be allowed even in a consumer-controlled parecon. He writes “Will a musician be kept on as an employee if he or she wishes to pursue some unusual idea? Unless it is lame-brained, why not? Why should we be confident of this? Because not only the artist’s fellow artists but the whole population has no trouble understanding the desirability of wide-ranging artistic exploration.” The flaws in this argument were a key argument for the distinction between functional and creative labor. To restate, the non-musician population has its own interests, and will be unlikely to support experimentation, even if one’s fellow musicians would be more willing to. And even the idea that one’s fellow musicians support experimentation can be disputed if one looks at the purism in certain music scenes.

The implications for the music studio and venue are that all musicians must negotiate for funding. As the venue is a single workplace, all musicians would then form a singular creative council, regardless of their specific styles. This united council would then be able to secure greater funding, as consumers and music supporters would then be inclined to support music in general.

This has said nothing about what specific labor is funded. In our example, this is related to the question, who gets the materials they need, and who gets to play live? Our analysis suggests that this would be decided by the musicians themselves, but as seen above, this can be problematic. To ensure that as many creative workers as possible get the funding they need, we will now closely examine the allocation of funding within a workplace.

Allocating Funding To Projects

For our investigation of funding specific projects, we will look at a film studio, in which the lack of infinite resources becomes particularly notable, in addition to a music studio. Not everybody with an idea for a film will be able to get the resources to produce it.

Of course, the question of who decides how to allocate funds is complicated. This is related to the question of who should be involved in the film-making process in the first place, and there is no easy answer. On one hand, it would be easy to say that not just anyone should be able to join, but only those who understand and are serious about cinema. On the other hand, gatekeeping who gets in could prevent the studio from making more experimental art.

Our consideration of consumers in the funding process so far has been limited to only how many resources go to a workplace. While this has been deemed necessary, arguments could be raised for the consumers having a voice in allocating funding to specific projects. The advantages of this are that it gives a way for funding to be allocated without the majority of artists in a workplace just allocating the funding to themselves. The downside is that it reintroduces the idea of consumer oversight over art, which we oppose.

The music scene gives us an example of how to correct this. The consumers here are those who listen to or go see live music, but even then, there are those who are more serious about music, and those who are not. Those who are more serious usually dig deeper into a genre, or explore more styles, and often go to live shows. The casual consumers do not dig deeper.

Therefore, the control over production by casual consumers is the most dangerous, but oversight from serious consumers is less-so. They will be more inclined to support various art and experimentation, and can also represent consumers when negotiating for the creative workspace during the general negotiation process. We can then add a consumers’ committee to our creative workspace. One must demonstrate that they are a serious supporter of the art to be added, and how they do so will be examined in future work. They will then be able to vote for funding for specific projects, and negotiate on their consumers’ council during the process for allocating funding to workspaces.

But what about more experimental artists, those who will be sidelined? As not all films can be funded, our only option is to ensure that they get some representation. This is related to the question of who can join the workplace. Our proposal here is that anyone with an idea, say for a film, will be able to present it during the funding process. Then they will form a council, with the serious consumers, to allocate for films during the funding process. They will then debate among themselves which films specifically get funding.

Summary

Wilde was critical of public oversight over art, and we have interpreted consumer control and funding. But as funds do need to be allocated, consumer control is inevitable, and by examining ways to allocate funding, we have worked to reduce its impact.

We proposed a distinction between casual and serious consumers, to be determined later. We also followed Devine in expecting all to do some form of creative labor in addition to the functional labor they already do. Anyone will then be able to submit an idea for a project to a creative workspace, and join its creative council, which will also consist of the serious consumers. Funding will be in two stages. First, a process for allocating funding to creative workspaces, without reference to specific projects. In this, consumers councils and creative councils will negotiate to allocate funds for the year.

Then, the funds will be divided within the workspace. The creative council is to decide this among themselves. Everyone argues for their project, and the serious consumers can lend their support and votes.

This proposal still has its problems, which leave open questions:

• It is unclear how to distinguish a serious consumer from a casual consumer. 
• What will happen to those who do not get funding? Will they ever be able to? How can their interests be secured?
• Some projects require collaboration between workplaces, but our process only funds projects based on funds to a workplace, which is considered a discrete unit. How would collaboration and a transfer of funds work?
• What if a project ends up more resources than it received during the funding process?

We aim to answer these questions in future articles, so that the democratically planned economy can allow as much creative experimentation and work as possible within the limits that finite resources impose.