To begin: you’re literally doing the petit bourgeois argument that Marx spent books discussing the failures. I think you should read some theory on this. Either you are asking for class collaboration with petit bourgeois artists (again, make the argument, I’m genuinely open to hearing that this is necessary), or you are just arguing for petit bourgeois interests with no class analysis.
You’re siding with capital against capital, don’t act like your side is high and mighty. I’m arguing to let capital destroy itself strategically by not defending copyright Giants and letting whatever carveout is created be used to undermine capital further
I am kinda done arguing this, because it is not worth my time to argue with people who don’t know what the proletariat even is. But since you seem a bit more charitable, one last attempt before the block:
So please explain how most or all artists are petit bourgeois without pointing out they don’t all work directly for capital. If you believe that is how you define it, you are too stupid to actually be on the left. You can see that argument debunked nearby.
Are there a few artists who are petit bourgeois? Sure. There are also a few plumbers who founded plumbing companies and there are cooks who own restaurants. Doesn’t make the whole job anything else but proletarian.
As for capital fighting capital: the winner of that fight will be capital. Capital fights itself all the time without our help. I have yet to see you explain how your idea of getting the left involved helps anything.
Lol you’re gonna block me because you responded to me and you don’t like that I think you’re wrong?? Then go ahead I guess, but seems pretty petty lol
You really just don’t understand what proletarian means, and are trying to push me into a vulgar Marxist position. Proletarians are defined by having to sell their labour time, not selling the products of their labour. Anything about whether they work or not, or whether their work is hands-on or not is a useless distinction when push comes to shove, and history bares that out. It’s a distinction that seems unimportant until cases like this where the desired policies are opposed. Take the 18th Brumaire, where the petty bourgeois were mostly tradesmen who made and sold directly their own products. Marx writes about how they feared the loss of their land and small properties moreso than they feared any dictatorship of Napoleon, and so they supported Napoleon in the hopes that he would stabilize their society and put down the proletarian revolution. Up until then, many in France had mistakenly thought that they were in an alliance with the petty bourgeoisie.
In this case, the distinction is whether or not someone owns the work they produce/the service they sell directly to a customer. Om the opposite side are those who are paid for their time and just have to fill that time with work which someone else will own. Sure, for many artists that means that they just have a computer and sell drawings or something, but the fact that they own that image, instead of ONLY owning their own labour time to sell, makes them not proletarian IN THAT PROCESS. And the legal distinction is who owns the copyright. Proletarians never do for their work.
Now, this doesn’t mean they’re immediately an enemy or something, that’s just a super limited view of such things. Someone isn’t immediately bad for having other interests. And people can have mixed interests, where they work mostly as a prole and then on the side do PB work. Claiming otherwise is some vulgar Marxism. It just means that we need to understand that their material interests aren’t fully aligned with proletarianism and we must consider that and the possibility of betrayal in making decisions. In this case, I’m trying to sus out whether PB artists fighting for copyright actions against AI companies are actually working against the benefits to proletarians, and the more we talk the more convinced I am that they are. The proletarian artist works for a capitalist and is paid for their time and owns none of the produce, and so has absolutely no reason to support copyright. The PB artists wants to be allowed to own the copyright. It’s an argument for stability in the legal realm exactly like in the 18th Brumaire.
Reconsider your ableist words. If we weren’t on a dead thread I’d report you for calling me ‘stupid’.
Stop acting like you’re not also supporting capital! You absolutely are! We’re just talking about if it’s worth all this effort that I see people pushing against AI companies. Fuck AI companies for all the other stuff, but hurting copyright is just a good thing for us. Every loophole allows for people to weaken capital through use of copyrighted stuff. Whatever legal distinction is made for AI companies to get to continue will be used by China, Niger, Burkina Faso, as cover to use intellectual property owned by western companies and not face sanctions.
Well if you haven’t blocked me yet, I’ll give you a courtesy warning that I reported for ableism. After warning you used another ableist term. Good luck in life
It really is wild that like 5 years ago Marxists wanted copyright abolished, and now they defend it like copyright somehow protects them to make their own art, when it never allowed it, only prohibited you from publishing certain works because a dead dude’s estate said no.
To begin: you’re literally doing the petit bourgeois argument that Marx spent books discussing the failures. I think you should read some theory on this. Either you are asking for class collaboration with petit bourgeois artists (again, make the argument, I’m genuinely open to hearing that this is necessary), or you are just arguing for petit bourgeois interests with no class analysis.
You’re siding with capital against capital, don’t act like your side is high and mighty. I’m arguing to let capital destroy itself strategically by not defending copyright Giants and letting whatever carveout is created be used to undermine capital further
I am kinda done arguing this, because it is not worth my time to argue with people who don’t know what the proletariat even is. But since you seem a bit more charitable, one last attempt before the block:
So please explain how most or all artists are petit bourgeois without pointing out they don’t all work directly for capital. If you believe that is how you define it, you are too stupid to actually be on the left. You can see that argument debunked nearby.
Are there a few artists who are petit bourgeois? Sure. There are also a few plumbers who founded plumbing companies and there are cooks who own restaurants. Doesn’t make the whole job anything else but proletarian.
As for capital fighting capital: the winner of that fight will be capital. Capital fights itself all the time without our help. I have yet to see you explain how your idea of getting the left involved helps anything.
Lol you’re gonna block me because you responded to me and you don’t like that I think you’re wrong?? Then go ahead I guess, but seems pretty petty lol
You really just don’t understand what proletarian means, and are trying to push me into a vulgar Marxist position. Proletarians are defined by having to sell their labour time, not selling the products of their labour. Anything about whether they work or not, or whether their work is hands-on or not is a useless distinction when push comes to shove, and history bares that out. It’s a distinction that seems unimportant until cases like this where the desired policies are opposed. Take the 18th Brumaire, where the petty bourgeois were mostly tradesmen who made and sold directly their own products. Marx writes about how they feared the loss of their land and small properties moreso than they feared any dictatorship of Napoleon, and so they supported Napoleon in the hopes that he would stabilize their society and put down the proletarian revolution. Up until then, many in France had mistakenly thought that they were in an alliance with the petty bourgeoisie.
In this case, the distinction is whether or not someone owns the work they produce/the service they sell directly to a customer. Om the opposite side are those who are paid for their time and just have to fill that time with work which someone else will own. Sure, for many artists that means that they just have a computer and sell drawings or something, but the fact that they own that image, instead of ONLY owning their own labour time to sell, makes them not proletarian IN THAT PROCESS. And the legal distinction is who owns the copyright. Proletarians never do for their work.
Now, this doesn’t mean they’re immediately an enemy or something, that’s just a super limited view of such things. Someone isn’t immediately bad for having other interests. And people can have mixed interests, where they work mostly as a prole and then on the side do PB work. Claiming otherwise is some vulgar Marxism. It just means that we need to understand that their material interests aren’t fully aligned with proletarianism and we must consider that and the possibility of betrayal in making decisions. In this case, I’m trying to sus out whether PB artists fighting for copyright actions against AI companies are actually working against the benefits to proletarians, and the more we talk the more convinced I am that they are. The proletarian artist works for a capitalist and is paid for their time and owns none of the produce, and so has absolutely no reason to support copyright. The PB artists wants to be allowed to own the copyright. It’s an argument for stability in the legal realm exactly like in the 18th Brumaire.
Reconsider your ableist words. If we weren’t on a dead thread I’d report you for calling me ‘stupid’.
Stop acting like you’re not also supporting capital! You absolutely are! We’re just talking about if it’s worth all this effort that I see people pushing against AI companies. Fuck AI companies for all the other stuff, but hurting copyright is just a good thing for us. Every loophole allows for people to weaken capital through use of copyrighted stuff. Whatever legal distinction is made for AI companies to get to continue will be used by China, Niger, Burkina Faso, as cover to use intellectual property owned by western companies and not face sanctions.
Removed by mod
Well if you haven’t blocked me yet, I’ll give you a courtesy warning that I reported for ableism. After warning you used another ableist term. Good luck in life
It really is wild that like 5 years ago Marxists wanted copyright abolished, and now they defend it like copyright somehow protects them to make their own art, when it never allowed it, only prohibited you from publishing certain works because a dead dude’s estate said no.
Just wild how they swapped sides.