Should all radio work be unpaid?

[ahinton]

Try reading the whole of my post before replying. I clearly state a successful communist revolution should be international, global - 'by the working classes of every country'.

I did read it and noted this but the problem with it is that getting everyone in the world to agree to do this would be impossible and I have issues in any case with the term "working classes" other than when used to denote those who work, regardless of for how much or at what.

On the very same goods and services which are produced freely for free.

In theory, sure, but can you conceive of a situation in which the provision of all goods and services for free to all citizens could actually happen? I'm sure that I can't!

This strikes me as an odd question, considering that under capitalism, billions of people are able only to barely survive. Obviously the goal of communism is the growth and development to the fullest extent of everyone's capabilities, enabled by a limitation of the working day, until, as I pointed out, automation is at a point where all unpleasant work has been automated and humans can freely create, so the 'working day' ceases to exist as a concept.

Billions are and have been barely able to survive under capitalism (even in communist states) due to unwarranted greed and the corrupt use and operation of capitalism.

"From each according to his ability, to each according to his need".

I don't think that this cliché quite answers the question!

[QUOTE=Joseph K;680062]Yes, Marx celebrated the achievements of the bourgeoisie. His was right to do so.
See below.

Actually 'greed' or profit-seeking is inbuilt into capitalism. Capitalism is amoral... there's almost no point in talking about concepts of greed because people simply are behaving congruently with the irrational system that is capitalism.

I don't believe that this is the case - or at least that it hs to be so; in any case, if it is, what makes you think that the abolition of capitalism in all its forms and guises would wipe out greed, profit-seeking and economic/financial immorality at a stroke?

But I am all for reforms that would make, e.g. the UK a better place to live, if we could elect Corbyn's Labour.

I suspect that Corbyn's Labour (which isn't every Labour supporter's Labour in an case) would at present and for the foreeable future (insofar as any political future can be foreseen in present day UK) be about as electable as May's or indeed anyone else's Tories; in other words, I anticipate hung Parliaments being the outcome of the next few General Elections in UK. I could be wrong about that, of ourse, but I imagine that political instability and uncertainty is something to which we're all going to have increasingly to become accustomed.

Nonetheless I am very intrigued by how you think capitalism could possibly become a force for good rather than evil.

Note your remarx about Marx above.

This seems a far more far-fetched idea than my idea of communism - care to sketch out an image of how capitalism can become a force for good?

By systematically getting rid of all its negative elements to start with; I accept that this would be immensely difficult but less so than overhauling the system so completely that international communism without national borders would replace the various régimes that currently exist and become the order of the global day.

Radio pay, anyone?(!)...

[Joseph K]

Joseph, you're being sucked into ahinton's rabbithole here. I recall in the past telling him almost exactly the same things as you're doing now and getting almost exactly the same responses. As I said to him at a certain point, why not just read some socialist literature and then you wouldn't ask such obvious things, which obviously he hasn't done, or pretends not to have, because clearly his only intention is to draw out the "discussion" and waste your time. This is exactly why I never respond directly to his posts.

Thank you.

Ahinton, I suggest you read 'Seventeen Contradictions and the End of Capitalism' by David Harvey and 'Talking to my Daughter about the Economy or A Brief History of Capitalism' by Yanis Varoufakis.

[Bryn]

Joseph, you're being sucked into ahinton's rabbithole here. I recall in the past telling him almost exactly the same things as you're doing now and getting almost exactly the same responses. As I said to him at a certain point, why not just read some socialist literature and then you wouldn't ask such obvious things, which obviously he hasn't done, or pretends not to have, because clearly his only intention is to draw out the "discussion" and waste your time. This is exactly why I never respond directly to his posts.

On a quite unconnected subject, I received a communication from the Department of Works and Pensions a couple of days ago. On the page headed "How your weekly rate of State Pension is made up" it gives the figures for "Basic State Pension - based on National Insurance contributions", "Additional State Pension", "Shared additional State Pension", "Extra State Pension - for not getting your pension earlier" three further referrences to "State Pension", then, and only then, a referrence to "Graduated Retirement Benefit" (in my case amounting to the grand sum of £2.90 a week). That is the only mention of any "Retirement Benefit" in the whole communication, and the amount comprises less than 2% of the total Pension before the deferred pension is even considered. With the latter taken into considration Mr. AH's oft mentioned "Retirement Benefit"* makes up around 1%.

* He has repeatedly asserted here that there is no "State Pension" but only a State "Retirement Benefit".

Back to the topic of discussion.

[Lat-Literal]

Some people have not defined work as the main purpose in life for a long time. Thinking back, the old SDP proposed the introduction of the "Citizen's Income" in the 1980s, thought to be viable because the majority of people want/need more (much more?) than a basic income, and only people who didn't define work as the main purpose in life would take advantage of the scheme - people who were happy working on their allotment, writing poetry, volunteering for a charity, painting, doing something for which they didn't require/need to be paid … It was also thought that there would be enough such people to keep them out of the job market, leaving enough paid employment for those who needed it.

But it was mainly for people wanting to 'do their own thing' not take paid jobs from other people.

Sadly, I can't access that link for some reason. It's an interesting read-across though not what was in my conscious mind even if I was a founder member. (I could still in theory sign up to them along with the other half a dozen or so people who are members though not to any new centre party). Anyhow, I think my main point is about how hobbyism can provide more diverse and vibrant inputs than those who are employed-by-formula and it may well be the more natural partner of entertainment. Something along those lines - not especially political.

http://sdp.org.uk/

nb. The history of the SDP since 1990:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_Democratic_Party_(UK,_1990–present)

(469 votes throughout 2017)

[french frank]

Anyhow, I think my main point is about how hobbyism can provide more diverse and vibrant inputs than those who are employed-by-formula and it may well be the more natural partner of entertainment. Something along those lines - not especially political.

http://sdp.org.uk/

Good gracious - I knew a Liberal Party still existed but I was under the impression that the membership of the SDP voted to merge with the Liberals. I think we have an example of the Schrodinger's Cat paradox.

Anyway, I'm assuming that you see radio presenting/production as a hobby which many people would love to do unpaid - just choosing your favourite records and broadcasting them the nation?

PS. No I can't make that link work either. I think it was a letters page in a newspaper.

Guardian comments: https://www.theguardian.com/politics...came-a-reality

[Eine Alpensinfonie]

Please can we keep to the topic of unpaid work (particularly radio).

[Lat-Literal]

Good gracious - I knew a Liberal Party still existed but I was under the impression that the membership of the SDP voted to merge with the Liberals. I think we have an example of the Schrodinger's Cat paradox.

Anyway, I'm assuming that you see radio presenting/production as a hobby which many people would love to do unpaid - just choosing your favourite records and broadcasting them the nation?

PS. No I can't make that link work either. I think it was a letters page in a newspaper.

Guardian comments: https://www.theguardian.com/politics...came-a-reality

Each station would have a remit. There would need to be a standard of presentation and production. But content would be assessed on the basis of it not being formulaic and yet being within the remit. Scheduling would be loose if it existed at all. There would probably be a maximum of two months of broadcasting for any producer or presenter in each calendar year. Live musicians would be paid. Actors would be paid. Technicians would be paid. Managers, presenters and production staff would not be paid. And there would be no board of directors. This would provide an ambitious, inventive, brave and surprising broadcasting service with enthusiasm conveyed where it matters - in the presentation, the content and overall style.

[ahinton]

Joseph, you're being sucked into ahinton's rabbithole here. I recall in the past telling him almost exactly the same things as you're doing now and getting almost exactly the same responses. As I said to him at a certain point, why not just read some socialist literature and then you wouldn't ask such obvious things, which obviously he hasn't done, or pretends not to have, because clearly his only intention is to draw out the "discussion" and waste your time. This is exactly why I never respond directly to his posts.

Richard, I appreciate very much your frankness and honesty as expressed here, although I have never wanted or expected to make you or anyone else feel obligated to reply to any post that I make. You did indeed encourage me to read certain socialist literature years ago, some of which I had already read but more of which you helpfully directed me towards - and I appreciate this, too. Where I believe your problem with what you presume my views to be is that reading something, however interesting, does not and indeed cannot in and of itself result in believeing its every word or even the majority of its words; I could, for example, suggest that you read The Big Society and/or Compassionate Conservatism by Dr Jesse Norman but I would not expect you to change your views as a direct consequence of having done so - indeed, why would I? (and what price either title in the light of recent and current Tory party conduct in any case?).

For the record, I'm not sucking anyone into anything here. I do not seek to change anyone's mind but, at the same time, I believe that I retain a right to express certain things as best I can without wishing to cause offence and without seeking to persuade anyone that I am right and they might be wrong; I am not possessed of such arrogance. I listen to what you, Joseph and others say and, believe me, I do take it seriously. I don't at all expect you to lap any or all of it up, but I am left with an impression that at least some of what I've written inspires an intransigent intolerance in you, which is a shame. I do my best to reason out things and no doubt fall short in that department but not for want of genuine effort; these issues are of such overwhelming importance for society and its future and, whatever you might think, I harbour a genuine respect for your views on them, not least because you have taken the not inconsiderable trouble to form those views.

Thank you for giving me the opportunity to respond as I have here; I'd have done it sooner but I was busy posting something else here at the time and didn't notice your post from two minutes earlier after having done so. I have no wish to waste anyone's time (as you suggest) or to draw out a discussion which, as I've noted more than once, is supposed to be about whether radio work should or should not be paid for and to which I trust this discussion will now return.

[french frank]

Each station would have a remit. There would need to be a standard of presentation and production. But content would be assessed on the basis of it not being formulaic and yet being within the remit. Scheduling would be loose if it existed at all. There would probably be a maximum of two months of broadcasting for any producer or presenter in each calendar year. Live musicians would be paid. Actors would be paid. Technicians would be paid. Managers, presenters and production staff would not be paid. And there would be no board of directors. This would provide an ambitious, inventive, brave and surprising broadcasting service with enthusiasm conveyed where it matters - in the presentation, the content and overall style.

Who would decide the station remits? Who would be 'assessing' the content? Who would be paying the musicians, actors &c.? Where would the money come from for the copyright collecting societies and who would organise the payments? What would presenters and producers do for the other 10 months of the year? Who engages (i.e. 'employs') the presenters? And how will speech radio be organised and scheduled? - a drama takes months and months to produce and record. What about radio news?

Or are you only talking about records and disc jockeys?

[Dave2002]

Perhaps our OP was presenting a question to make us realise that some - particularly complex - enterprises can't run without money, and actually paying people to do things. Maybe!

We may question the amounts given to some, nevertheless. Surely most of us here have by now come to this conclusion.

[greenilex]

I would be in favour of paying people not to broadcast.

[ahinton]

I would be in favour of paying people not to broadcast.

Only in certain specific cases, though, surely?(!)...

[Ein Heldenleben]

Who would decide the station remits? Who would be 'assessing' the content? Who would be paying the musicians, actors &c.? Where would the money come from for the copyright collecting societies and who would organise the payments? What would presenters and producers do for the other 10 months of the year? Who engages (i.e. 'employs') the presenters? And how will speech radio be organised and scheduled? - a drama takes months and months to produce and record. What about radio news?
Or are you only talking about records and disc jockeys?

French Frank : You could add - Who would ensure compliance with health and safety and do risk assessments, ensure compliance with EU working time directives, monitor child protection procedures, take responsibility for content in terms of OFCOM and ensure any live content did not breach OFCOM guidelines , ensure legal compliance in terms of avoiding defamation , vet requests to ensure that record requests for deceased British soldiers were not broadcast ? In short the myriad tasks that underpaid producers in both the public and private sectors do every day.

[french frank]

French Frank : You could add - Who would ensure compliance with health and safety and do risk assessments, ensure compliance with EU working time directives, monitor child protection procedures, take responsibility for content in terms of OFCOM and ensure any live content did not breach OFCOM guidelines , ensure legal compliance in terms of avoiding defamation , vet requests to ensure that record requests for deceased British soldiers were not broadcast ? In short the myriad tasks that underpaid producers in both the public and private sectors do every day.

Yes.

[Lat-Literal]

Who would decide the station remits? Who would be 'assessing' the content? Who would be paying the musicians, actors &c.? Where would the money come from for the copyright collecting societies and who would organise the payments? What would presenters and producers do for the other 10 months of the year? Who engages (i.e. 'employs') the presenters? And how will speech radio be organised and scheduled? - a drama takes months and months to produce and record. What about radio news?

Or are you only talking about records and disc jockeys?

I see this as the alternative model for BBC radio. Not wholly but 30% of it initially. So, yes, the licence fee so far as your payment questions are concerned. No, not just records and DJs. Far from it. It opens up precisely the opposite. Remits, broad and set by the Government, would be tweaked, rather than radically reformed.The radical reform is in the structuring. Schedulers, to the extent that they are needed, and assessors of content, voluntary, to be invited to apply. But strict limits on the amount of time each year that they could spend on it.

Re R3, for example, it isn't that a William Glock is needed to provide a heavy individualistic steer. It is that the opposite of a Glock, which is effectively what exists now, isn't needed. That formula-by-permanent-highly paid-committee. Elsewhere - this is not especially pertinent to R3 directly - the celebrity presenter on which all else depends is a fallacy which needs to be challenged. This would free up money across the network. Also, in-house style or branding should be based on unpredictability - if it has to be a brand it should in essence be anti-brand in that way. It is really ridiculous, for example, that all BBC local radio has identical music for station identification. But certain pillars of certainty would, of course, be retained.