Martin Franco wrote:
On Sun, Jun 15, 2008 at 08:08:41PM -0700, DJA wrote:
Ideally. But, for example, in practice at the present, allowing future
works to be built upon current work is the /last/ thing the music
industry (most professional musicians included) wants. Competition is
certainly very, very ill in the entertainment industry.
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.
And how many musicians actually make it
into the music industry anyway? I would expect that to be a pretty
small minority.
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.
And I personally get tired of hearing the implied argument that Artists
produce art only for money.
When did I say that?
I feel it's implied whenever artists are grouped with businesses in
economic discussions. 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.
The two are polar opposites, and
its not surprising that its often hard to integrate the smaller
cooporative communities into the competitive framework of our economic
system, to make money with GPL'ed code, for example.
Sure, if you have very narrow definitions of success. If a
freely-produced, freely-given product or service (e.g. GPL-licensed
software or creative commons-licensed literature) improves that state of
its respective industry or inspires similar work (Free or proprietary),
then I'd call that both cooperative, successful, and profitable. If it
improves some aspect of society as a whole, then where's the rub?
How is it then commercially profitable? "improves... society as a
whole" and "profitable" are often at odds, in my opinion.
If society comes out ahead, that's a profit for society.
That's certainly not a definition of profit that's recognized in any
conventional circles. By that definition, the barber down the street is
a crook because he has money left over after expenses.
No, because the barber keeps all the value he produced. If that barber
has a boss, then some of that value goes to the boss whether he did
anything to earn it or not.
I was implying that the barber owns his own shop. He may indeed have
employees, which makes him the boss. Maybe I should have chosen a
different business for an example. But I stand by my argument.
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.
that's definition that's anti-business in general. Your basic definition
is based on the false assumption that the owner of a business
necessarily contributes nothing to that business.
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.
That's your capitalist, free-market economy at work. It's also result of
competition.
He could
work himself to death or just go on vacation, and, so long as his
business is doing well, still have an incredible income. That money
does not come from his efforts, but from the efforts of the employees of
his business.
So, no reward for risk? No reward for management skills. No reward for
business decisions? You imply that a business owner should take all the
risks but at best break even, while only his employees make money?
Even if that value was not taken from the people who produced it, the
objective of the corporation is not the benefit of the community, the
sustainable production of its goods and ecological preservation, or any
other lofty objective.
Says who? All corporations, or just some? That's a pretty broad brush.
All of us could name at least several for which that is true. But those
examples don't make such a sweeping generalization any truer. Especially
when it's based on flawed "facts". See above.
All corporations, at least as far as all corporations act in a
capitalist manner (which they all do much/most of the time).
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?
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.
So, what is your antidote? What is your remedy? I haven't heard such
illogical nonsense since the '60's (when I was spouting the same thing
as I was being conscripted into fighting another
irrationally-justified, corporate-sponsored war).
Anarchy--socialism organized not around a state, but around free
associations of people and managed by democracy/consensus of its
participants.
Simple democracy is nothing more that mob rule. Consensus is merely
managed guessing as to what the mob wants. In any case, neither of those
models works without leaders (bosses). A managed (led) democracy /is/
the State.
My points:
o Some people are bad.
o Some bosses are bad.
o Some businesses are bad.
o Some corporations are bad.
o Life is not a function of a binary universe.
* What is the legal minimum of members required to form a Board of
Directors?
--
Best Regards,
~DJA.
--
[email protected]
http://www.kernel-panic.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/kplug-list
