Artists and Marxism: A Theory

Why did an ideology full of dry, boring technocratic planning become so beloved by so many artists?

Among critics of the left, a common topic of discussion is why the intelligentsia became so disenchanted with classical liberalism and embraced illiberal ideologies like Marxism. Of course, we already know the left's explanation is "because the left is correct, and because the intelligentsia is smart, they realized the left was correct." This explanation is flattering, both to the left and to the intelligentsia, but doesn't sit well with the fact that classical liberals (or libertarians) have been demonstrated to have higher IQs than both the (typically defined) mainstream right and left. In order to explain this abandonment of liberalism by the intelligentsia (the co-called "Treason of the Intellectuals"), it is most commonly suggested that intellectuals generally believe that in a liberal society, they will not receive the amount of wealth or power or social esteem (or some combination thereof) they believe they deserve. Because classical liberalism won't let them be Platonic Philosopher-Kings, they generally reject classical liberalism, and every theory they come up with to justify this rejection is at least in part driven by some variety of motivated reasoning. Public Choice Theory generally supports this line of argumentation (generally focusing on the desire of intelligentsia for wealth), as did political philosopher Robert Nozick (generally focusing on the intelligentsia's desire for esteem), and novelist-philosopher Ayn Rand (generally focusing on the intelligentsia's desire for power).

However, a related and equally interesting question is why artists have historically had a similar political bent. Artists deal with human ideas and ideals, if in a more indirect and psychological-emotional manner, and it could be argued that they really are just an offshoot of the intelligentsia. If so, presumably the same theories that explain the politics of the intelligentsia apply to artists.

However, a theory that explains why artists would reject liberalism doesn't necessarily explain why artists would be enamored with Marxism. Marxism is a specific kind of illiberal belief system, not a catch-all term for all kinds of illiberalism. If Marxism appealed to artists because Marxism offered the promise of much more funding for public art and consequently much more economic opportunity for artists (a simple Public Choice Theory explanation of the appeal of Marxism to artists), one must ask why this theory didn't apply to Fascism and Nazism as well - the totalitarian nationalisms were intensely aesthetic ideologies (Hugo Boss's uniforms, Albert Speer's architecture, Leni Riefenstahl's filmmaking...) and were very willing to provide very generous funding to artists (Joseph Goebbels funded a lot of movies). Yes, this art was propaganda, but so was the Socialist Realism funded by Marxist regimes, and artistic freedom was strictly curtailed by both Marxist and authoritarian-nationalist movements. Ergo, Public Choice Theory doesn't explain why artists would skew towards Marxism and against Fascism and Nazism - it explains a general skepticism of liberalism and an embrace of ideologies that are likely to funnel more public funds to artists, but not any more specific ideological preferences. Nor does any appeal to artistic freedom - artistic freedom explanations would predict artists embracing liberalism, not any authoritarian ideology.

There has to be something foundational to Marxism itself that appeals to artists in particular. I argue that this factor is the Labour Theory of Economic Value.

The Labour Theory of Economic Value states that the economic value of something is the amount of labour put into creating it. This theory was conclusively disproven over a century ago by three economists working independently from each other - Carl Menger, Leon Walras and William Jevons - in an event called the Marginalist Revolution. Ever since the Marginalist Revolution, economics has been based on the Subjective Theory of Economic Value - or in brief, that the economic value of something is what other people will give you in exchange for it, which is nothing more than a function of their subjective preferences.

This theory is, in some ways, quite liberating. It means that prices are nothing more and nothing less than subjective judgments. They aren't moral judgments. You aren't a "worse person" just because you earn less money than another person, market prices are not some sort of character judgment or the worth of your soul or your stature as a human being. But in other ways, it is one hell of a bitter pill to swallow, because it means that by itself, your hard work is absolutely worthless, and your effort's value (of a particular kind) is entirely determined by how other people appraise the results of it.

Put yourself in the position of the artist. Imagine you have spent night after night working on something you believe to be your best work, pouring effort into it and driving yourself mad with trying to perfect it. This piece of work is deeply personal to you - it feels like part of yourself. And then just imagine the audience, who you hoped would love it, take one look and dismiss the product of your effort as worthless trash. To say this causes pain is an understatement. Indeed, for such a personal expression to be condemned to the dumpster feels like an insult to the very core of one's person.

The Subjective Theory of Economic Value would remind you that this is merely an appraisal of that work's economic worth, not any kind of transcendent or moral worth (or even artistic worth, should such a thing objectively exist). But that is cold comfort compared to what the Labour Theory gives you. The Labour Theory says you can absolutely discard the judgment of the market. They are wrong, because you put so much work into this piece. They are objectively incorrect. They, objectively, have bad taste. Your only misstep was to cast pearls before such ungrateful swine!

The irony is quite palpable - Marxism originally presented itself as a populist ideology that exalted the masses over the elites, but the Labour Theory of Value upon which this ideology is based allows for elitist Byronic artiste hissy-fit temper-tantrums and the wholescale rejection of popular taste's validity. How DARE they not correctly appraise the worth of your art! Those morons! Clearly, they're blind to true art! You, the artist, are the one who sees truth, and they, the masses, are deaf and dumb and blind to it. In disrespecting your work, they only condemn themselves.

If my theory is correct, this suggests that it will be harder than usual to teach economics to artists, not due to any factors relating to intellect or cognitive style (although these might have some impact), but due to the fact they have a self-interested reason to oppose economic subjectivism.

I offer this theory for discussion.