On Mon, Jun 16, 2008 at 02:19:30PM -0700, DJA wrote: >> I'm talking about people who release thier music under creative commons >> on websites like jamendo.com, possibly remixes or otherwise based on >> other similarly released media. > > Those people may or may not be in the business of selling their work > product. Assuming they are not, then they are not businesses, and so to > me, outside the context of the discussion. They may not be selling thier works, but the free product could increase demand for thier services (live performances). Are all free software projects to be exempted as well?
Of particular interest to me is when something of great value is produced outside the framework of capitalism. GNU/Linux, for example. I think that process is relevent when discussing capitalism, if only for comparison. > I guess we need to agree on a definition of "Industry". You really > can't lump all businesses together (as in all corporations are evil) > and then cherry pick the members of that group as examples of a > counter group. Business != corporation. A corporation is a legal entity, a "person", with a legal mandate to pursue profit. And when I think of a professional artist, I think of an artist who lives off the money made by practicing his art. I expect most artists have a day job. > Artists don't compete in the same way as the typical business. They > strive for the best performance, not the most money or largest share > of the market. This is probably the goal for most/all artists. A corporation like the RIAA, however, has a very different set of priorities. > If society comes out ahead, that's a profit for society. But how often does that happen? How often does the opposite happen? A corporation will consider the difference in terms of dollars, so it could easily go either way. "Good" should be the first priority. > One is in business to make money, not break even, and certainly not to > lose money. If one wants to break even (merely work for wages) then > one should work for someone else. I have no problem with making money, its taking money others have made that I disagree with. Here's an example: A farmer owns 100 acres of land, and has 10 slaves that work his fields. He feeds them, houses them, and lives off thier labor. What if those 10 people were not slaves, but free men and women who are forced by thier economic condition to sell thier labor to the farmer. These people are paid a wage which allows them to purchase food and housing, possibly even from the farmer himself. The boss then lives off the labors of his employees. How are these two situations practically different? The same relationship exists between the farmer (owner/capitalist) and the worker (everyone else). 'Free' means they could quit if they wanted to, hopefully to be employed by someone else (under similar working conditions). It is a freedom from restraint, not a freedom to the opportunity for equality/success/happiness/whatever. >> His income is not proportional to the work he does to get it. > Another gross generalization, as well as a value judgment. As with > things, people are worth what someone else is willing to pay them. And the people who are paying the capitalists are the employees (and the capitalist himself, to a lesser degree the more people work under him/her), and they don't have a choice in the matter. They aren't paying the capitalist so much as the capitalist is taking money from them. > You imply that a business owner should take all the risks but at best > break even, while only his employees make money? I meant to imply that there should be no business owner, that the business should be owned by its employees, not by a single/few individuals. > Obviously, I and empirical data disagree. Not /all/ corporations exist > simply in order to satisfy their greed. BTW, there are many, many > corporations which consist of only a half-dozen* or fewer people. I'll > bet that case accounts for a large percentage of corporations. Are all > those people evil too? People have a wide range of motives, but the criteria for success under capitalism includes the pursuit of profit, and... that's pretty much it. If people can pursue profit and thier other ideals at the same time, great. It's the rest of the time that worries me. >> Watch _The Corporation_[1] and _The Story of Stuff_[2] and tell me the >> system isn't screwed up. (They are free to download) > > Not necessary. It only takes one example to show that ALL corporations > are not bad. I'll grant you 'not bad', at least in the sense that many corporations are not in a position where they could really do much harm. Still, 'not bad' and 'good' are two different animals. > Simple democracy is nothing more that mob rule. Which is why consensus is preferable to democracy. Democracy is a faster process, so it has its place. > Consensus is merely managed guessing as to what the mob wants. Not if the 'mob' is small enough that they can hold real discussion and hopefully come to agreement. When they can't come to agreement, compromises can be made, or two seperate factions can be made. There are often a thousand good ways to accomplish something, and no good reason why several of them cannot be attempted in parallel. > In any case, neither of those models works without leaders (bosses). Leaders != bosses. A leader gives people good reasons to consider his decisions, but cannot throw them out on the street if they disagree with him. > A managed (led) democracy /is/ the State. If democracy only exists on a massive scale (everyone vote on election day, then go home and watch tv), then you're probably right. Decisions should be made at the lowest level possible. What works best in one town/business/group may not be best for another. For those issues which must be made at a higher level, delegates can be elected accountable to the decisions of the associations which elected them. A key attribute of the state is that its decisions are backed with threat of violence. Are humans so bad that they cannot have organization without doing so at gun-point? > My points: > > o Some people are bad. > o Some bosses are bad. So give them sovereignty over thier own lives, but don't let them dictate what I do with mine. > o Some businesses are bad. > o Some corporations are bad. That doesn't make the others good. I'm a computer guy first, and it wasn't long ago that I was apathetic to politics and economics. If you're not satisfied with my arguments, the Anarchy Faq goes into much greater detail in its arguments against capitalism and government, and ideas for thier replacement. -- Martin Franco <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> OpenPGP Key ID: 2B01DD81 Keyserver: pgpkeys.mit.edu -- KPLUG-List@kernel-panic.org http://www.kernel-panic.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/kplug-list
