Implications of the Monopolistic Order

So what next? Will these monopolists need their own armies to control their interest? Will they need their own currencies, to remove last bit of fiscal manipulation from the hands of clearly shrinking governments? What further implications of the monopolising world should we expect in years to come is what interests me.

People need to read more science fiction. F.M. Busby already addressed this 40 years ago, in the Hulzein Saga (an 8-book series in which multinational corporations have taken over forming the government until one decided not to hold any more elections and just took over Earth and whatever colonies it could on other planets).

Busting up Google ads would be great.

They've definitely had their bemusing moments over the years. I actually got them to change the ads they put on the Dune forum I ran, given that the ads were geared toward women (beauty products) and I told them that the forum was mostly populated by teenage boys, and young-middle-aged men who would not be buying those products.

It was actually funny when they started showing us ads for pug breeders and kennels. We'd been discussing Patrick Stewart carrying a pug around for half the Lynch movie.

All I know is that every game of Monopoly ends with someone getting mad, storming off, and frequently flipping the table.

Usually it's someone who doesn't realize that Boardwalk/Park Place isn't the most useful monopoly. If you want to bankrupt someone, buy St. James Place, Tennessee Avenue, and New York Avenue (the orange group). Players land on those far more often than Boardwalk/Park Place.
 
I believe you are doing something of a conflation - not an uncommon one - of a supposed opposition between a monopoly and a government.

Sometimes there's opposition, sometimes interests align. Most of the time interests do align, I agree, but there is no guarantee situation will remain static. The running case of Alibaba company is an example. Alibaba got so big they started challenging the leading role of the party, making independent international moves, while actually voicing opposition to some of the party's principles. The Chinese government, in response, is currently in the process of breaking down Alibaba into several small companies - the cloud unit, the e-commerce unit, etc. In the course of these events, Alibaba lost the lion's share of its capital, important customers, leading position in international market as investors ran, when Jack Ma started a public lightsaber fight with his own government. Clearly, opposition between a monopoly and the government is possible. That ended badly for this particular monopoly due to surrounding material conditions, which were heavily in favour of a very strong government. What's also notable in this example is the fact the Alibaba is tiny compared to top US corporations. America, due to its liberal limitation to state-corporation relationship can't just shut down Apple and place Tim Cook under house arrest, while breaking down Apple into 6 separate units, when Apple starts stepping on toes it's not supposed to step on.

As you mention, later in your post, governments enable corporations. That's true. But it doesn't have to mean that the child will forever be attached to mother. Child might try to break away from this relationship, while seeking higher norm of profitability. It can become a dominating figure, a stronger organism and try to challenge the initial hierarchical conditions. What if another dangerous buffoon climbs to the very top of the government hierarchy in America or Europe and start issuing silly orders to leading corporations - like stop trading with who you want to trade and trade only with Brazil? I believe the outcome of such opposition may be radically different than the outcomes we saw in the Chinese case above. I'd say the likely outcome will be inability to enforce. Regardless of the outcome, however, the opposition between governments and monopolies exists, they are not a hive mind these two.

Another example - current standoff between Nvidia and US government. The government says Nvidia should reduce the flow of AI chips (A100, particularly), because it is not in US national interest to supply strategic adversary with latest hardware, enabling China compete in AI field. Nvidia says "OK", renames A100 chips to H100, makes them twice more expensive and proceeds to sell those H100's to China as if nothing happened.

In fact, history demonstrates quite the opposite. Exxon Mobil does not need its own army, when the U.S occupiers in Iraq (and formerly Afghanistan) are present there, ready to extract territorial tribute from the land at will.

History demonstrates many contrasting things. To begin with Exxon was small in the grand scheme. They were worth $270 bn back in 2003, when second Iraqi campaign started. What we have now is Apple worth $3 trillion and Microsoft worth $2.5 trillion. The stakes are higher. This isn't just hot air capitalisation. These companies are present in every city on the planet and their products are almost in every pocket. Modern companies have noticeably bigger hold on world's population minds and wallets than Exxon had in 2003. Their oil business was important, but Exxon is merely an extraction/refinement company appended to the government and corporate interests.

Another important point is that corporations are in the constant process of de-nationalisation. Today, there is US, Arabic, European, Chinese, British capital in most of the biggest conglomerates. Ownership is multinational and it makes less and less sense to overly conform to a single national decision making centre, because if the company doesn't manage degree of independence the Arabic capital will find itself a better place to grow.

So Exxon attached itself to the process of US government clean sweeping Iraqi lands from competition. OK, they were lucky and good to be in the right place at the right time or facilitated the process. Is this proof enough that any big corporation will always succeed in outsourcing of military help to the state? I think this is proof that corporations are quite comfortable and adept at using military to their advantage, despite having no business doing so and despite millions of protesters on the streets of New York and London.
 
the Arabic Capital will not be anywhere else but London or New York . That they might do business with China or Russia is propaganda . Getting a better deal because they would be shot by their sons and whatnot if they "risk" things ...
 
You know that the dutch and the english east India companies had to be bailed out by the respective states. But there are less well talked about details about those famous examples. Their mercenary armies existed on loan from states, by which I mean using people and weapons allowed, made available, mostly by their states. The "war surplus" of the time. This is recurrent in whatever era mercenaries are used. The very existence of these companies, their charters, depended entirely on state enforcement of the laws that provided for then, and said how they were controlled.

Monopolies are always state creatures, products of the laws done by states favouring this form of organization over that. Where monopolies exist, they exist because of states.

Which is one of the sad things about people (usually libertarians or those influenced by neoliberal ideas) complaining about some evil of "socialist policies" because states would then have "more power" (this, when they bother explaing why they think socialism is bad). States always have power! That is by definition. The political issue is how, by whom and for whose benefit, that power gets used.

Because corporations with mercenaries are such a feature of distopian fiction, it is worth taking that down: modern mercenaries are like ancient mercenaries, sometimes they are used by "companies" but those always show up with the connivance and in full dependence of state power somewhere. That is as true of east Asia centuries ago as of Africa and Arabia in the 60s and 70s, or more recent cases up to Ukraine. And these uses are circumstantial and limited. Mercenaries (or corporations) actually taking over a state are extremely rare but if and where they do, they become the state, no longer companies, and we're back to the state model of political power. Anyway, very rarely does a Sforza appear in history.

I'm just pointing out that all of this has happened multiple times before, there's no need for future science fictionesque dystopian predictions when the past literally dictates how it will all pan out going forwards.

The only wild card however being whatever speculative technology will exist at that time whereby the ruling corporacrats can impose their social controls/engineering on the society beneath them, and whether or not they would be effective/more efficient then past means of social control and manipulation.
 
Hmmm...
Something tells me that eliminating intellectual property laws would be a great way to start busting monopolies...
Sounds tricky in practice, sure it would hurt corporate behemoths but also small time creators.

I think a largely open-source society would be optimal but I can't wrap my head around a world without intellectual property @ all.
 
Sounds tricky in practice, sure it would hurt corporate behemoths but also small time creators.

I think a largely open-source society would be optimal but I can't wrap my head around a world without intellectual property @ all.
Explain how it hurts small-time creators when it means that no corporation would be able to claim ownership over an idea.

The reason you might not be able to wrap your mind around a world without IP at all might be because you're so accustomed to the racket being run by everyone around you, big and small businesses alike, that insist that only they can own a certain idea, even if someone else comes up with the same thing organically without "stealing" the first person's idea.

I am against stealing, but you literally cannot steal an idea. You can only copy it. Using the language of IP bureaucrats and lobbyists will always make it sound like you're hurting people because it's language designed to be that way to help keep you invested in the system. In reality, you're kept far more restrained by IP laws than protected. IP laws "protect" creativity the way that a mafia "protects" a local Italian bakery.
 
Presumably w/o copywrites anyone could make money off your product, art, writing, whathaveyou & you'd have no recourse.
I understand this, but think about a world like that for longer than a minute. You'll understand that people wouldn't tend to do that because everyone can just copy anything in the first place without being punished. Everyone can use and fuse the ideas of anyone else. That means you can take the garbage stories that big publishing companies/video game companies/movie studios make, and make better versions of your own. What "recourse" should anyone have if someone else uses their ideas and improves on it? On that note, ask yourself why you might believe that people can't make money off their art in a world without IP.

Additionally, companies and individuals won't be able to rest on the laurels of their one or two successful IPs and sue anyone who dares to hint at using it for their own works of art. One of the reasons why IP law is popular is because it's far easier to be considered the only source for "official" information and paywall it/drip feed it out for profit, even if this information is about fictional people and places. Narz, take a quick step back and imagine this with me because it's quite funny:

Imagine you have an idea that becomes as big as Star Wars or something. Now, imagine a company who wants to "buy" your IP. Maybe Disney or whatever. You're essentially saying that a company has the ability to buy your ideas (of which can never be measured and cut in the first place), and that you no longer are allowed to make public the ideas about the fictional world or characters you originally thought up, which are now "sold." You are participating in an economy that would be more hilarious than terrifying if it didn't actually exist, because you're agreeing that you no longer have the "rights" to decide what's happening in a fictional world with fictional people. The levels of buying into the machine that enforces this for the sake of punishing actual creativity and rewarding a false exclusivity represents a level of brainwashing that would flatter even the most cartoonish mad scientist.

You could probably make more money than people who copy your ideas if you're actually better at them in the first place, since you're the original author of them, so your characters would probably feel more true to form than the characters of others. Still, if they rewrite them, then so what? It fills a creative niche that others who wouldn't normally have even been interested in your fictional world can use as an onramp to the media you've created if other people provide them a different version of it that they enjoy. It's a win-win. It only becomes a lose-lose when IP laws are put into place because this incentivizes creativity only along the lines of,"how can we make fans pay as much money as possible for this media?" rather than, "how much good stuff can we create for people to consume?"

This even applies to the sciences, where it's quickly discovered by even the most innocent of R&D folk that it's far more career stable to sit on a golden goose and force others to license it from you rather than allow everyone to have their own golden geese and now you're stuck creating new things. IP only helps investors because it shows that a company willing to flex its IP muscles that has a good product or popular media under its "ownership" will most likely be quite profitable over time. None of these people are excited about a quality treatment or entertaining art piece, they're excited that they've found something that they can exploit with IP laws. That's it.
 
The concept of 'profiting' from art is quite recent, historically speaking. (Not to even speak of patents.) For most of human history, art/"IP" would have been created at the behest of a monarchial or a religious institution. Alternatively, independent wealth - usually though not always aristocratic - would allow someone to pursue such a course in life.

As with so many things, however, capitalism changed that. Classical music is as good as any examples. Baroque music, for an example, was mostly commissioned by the European kings for a fairly rarefied audiences at royal palaces; one had to know the right people and to be backed by the even more right peopld. But by the end of the 19th century, much of classical music was just as easily swept up in something as populist as a national movement. And that was to packed halls of a rather representative cut of society. Capitalism had achieved an unprecedented democratisation of artistic consumption by treating it as any other "market" to conquer, by turning an art work in a clear, knowable production with a specific author, notation, credits, performances, and very crucially: reproducibility. You could read a Dickens story reproduced in a paper and, for the most part, it would be the same everywhere across the Anglophone world.

The issue, however, is that the commodification naturally reached the artist, who very quickly became a worker in their own right. The touring musician; the constant writer and submitter of stories. Etc. He or she were now an impersonal tool to help enrich someone totally different.
 
You could probably make more money than people who copy your ideas if you're actually better at them in the first place, since you're the original author of them, so your characters would probably feel more true to form than the characters of others. Still, if they rewrite them, then so what? It fills a creative niche that others who wouldn't normally have even been interested in your fictional world can use as an onramp to the media you've created if other people provide them a different version of it that they enjoy. It's a win-win. It only becomes a lose-lose when IP laws are put into place because this incentivizes creativity only along the lines of,"how can we make fans pay as much money as possible for this media?" rather than, "how much good stuff can we create for people to consume?"

Hm. I can see both sides of this. On the one hand, some of my most successful craft sales were because I took a published pattern (from Leisure Arts, or American School of Needlecraft or one of the needlepoint magazines)... and improved it. I either added or subtracted trims and accessories, used different colors, a different type of yarn, used a different size of canvas, or a different stitching technique. Sometimes I glued eyes on instead of stitching them.

Whose version was better? I daresay mine may have been better stitched in many cases because I make this stuff to be sturdy. It's not going to fall apart. But the rest is subjective.

On the other hand... I've created original patterns that I've never submitted for publication. I really don't want people copying my original needlework ideas, because I worked hard to develop them, learn the stitching techniques, and so on. I guess that makes me a bit hypocritical.

There are some fans who write stories that are superior to how the source material was presented. For instance, take the Merlin trilogy I'm re-reading now. The author's take on the characters is light-years better than the show's, even though the show provided the basis of the character. There's a running joke in the writing fandom that Gwaine and Lancelot must be twins. Both of them had so many similar things happen to them, including saving Merlin, being treated by Gaius, getting into trouble, getting banished, sneaking back to save Arthur, and leaving again... and years later becoming knights and then both die while trying to protect Arthur. The only significant differences are that Gwaine was born into a noble family and Lancelot wasn't. Gwaine was conflicted about becoming a knight and Lancelot saw it as the fulfillment of a lifelong dream. Lancelot was in love with Gwen and Gwaine merely flirted with her (fandom tends to be split whether to pair Gwaine with Merlin or Percival, an original female character, or Dame Ragnelle from the story of Sir Gawain and the Green Knight).

Fanfic writers have taken these and crafted a variety of stories both following canon and not. I haven't heard of the copyright holders minding this. Even Eoin Macken (Gwaine) had his own opinion of what actually happened to his character (the showrunner said he died, but Eoin's take is that no, he was sick for awhile and recovered, but ended up with amnesia and left Camelot - which is why he's not at Gwen's coronation). A fanfic writer wrote a story to incorporate that.

That said... would I want someone writing fanfic about my fanfic? That's a thing, btw - fanfics based on other stories that are in turn based on the source material. I guess if they had a really good idea that I didn't feel I could do justice to, it would be nice.
 
Last edited:
Why write a book or music, then have some jagoff copy it and make money on it? The proposal to do away with intellectual property impoverished the hard-working creator while enriching some lazy twit who just copies stuff?

Now, if you're working for a company and you come up with a new product idea, the company could claim some rights to it because you used company resources to come up your idea. There needs to be laws there to protect the creator. I worked for a smart company that allowed creators to patent their idea with the agreement that 25% of the revenue from the product is retained by the company. I knew a couple of guys who barely graduated from high school retired as millionaires because they had a knack as machinists.
 
Why write a book or music, then have some jagoff copy it and make money on it? The proposal to do away with intellectual property impoverished the hard-working creator while enriching some lazy twit who just copies stuff?

Now, if you're working for a company and you come up with a new product idea, the company could claim some rights to it because you used company resources to come up your idea. There needs to be laws there to protect the creator. I worked for a smart company that allowed creators to patent their idea with the agreement that 25% of the revenue from the product is retained by the company. I knew a couple of guys who barely graduated from high school retired as millionaires because they had a knack as machinists.
Because you want to write a good story or compose a good song? Do you ever do anything without a paid incentive? More people would actually do those things if they didn't need to worry about companies or individuals suing them into the stone age.

Also, the company you talked about surely used resources of other countless people and institutions to deliver and distribute and research and produce and more; do they all get a slice?

IP laws protect nobody from anything, and they never have.
 
All I know is that every game of Monopoly ends with someone getting mad, storming off, and frequently flipping the table.
Because it was originally designed to show how *bad * a monopoly is.
It was then bought and rejigged for marketing.
 
I understand this, but think about a world like that for longer than a minute. You'll understand that people wouldn't tend to do that because everyone can just copy anything in the first place without being punished. Everyone can use and fuse the ideas of anyone else. That means you can take the garbage stories that big publishing companies/video game companies/movie studios make, and make better versions of your own. What "recourse" should anyone have if someone else uses their ideas and improves on it? On that note, ask yourself why you might believe that people can't make money off their art in a world without IP.

Additionally, companies and individuals won't be able to rest on the laurels of their one or two successful IPs and sue anyone who dares to hint at using it for their own works of art. One of the reasons why IP law is popular is because it's far easier to be considered the only source for "official" information and paywall it/drip feed it out for profit, even if this information is about fictional people and places. Narz, take a quick step back and imagine this with me because it's quite funny:

Imagine you have an idea that becomes as big as Star Wars or something. Now, imagine a company who wants to "buy" your IP. Maybe Disney or whatever. You're essentially saying that a company has the ability to buy your ideas (of which can never be measured and cut in the first place), and that you no longer are allowed to make public the ideas about the fictional world or characters you originally thought up, which are now "sold." You are participating in an economy that would be more hilarious than terrifying if it didn't actually exist, because you're agreeing that you no longer have the "rights" to decide what's happening in a fictional world with fictional people. The levels of buying into the machine that enforces this for the sake of punishing actual creativity and rewarding a false exclusivity represents a level of brainwashing that would flatter even the most cartoonish mad scientist.

You could probably make more money than people who copy your ideas if you're actually better at them in the first place, since you're the original author of them, so your characters would probably feel more true to form than the characters of others. Still, if they rewrite them, then so what? It fills a creative niche that others who wouldn't normally have even been interested in your fictional world can use as an onramp to the media you've created if other people provide them a different version of it that they enjoy. It's a win-win. It only becomes a lose-lose when IP laws are put into place because this incentivizes creativity only along the lines of,"how can we make fans pay as much money as possible for this media?" rather than, "how much good stuff can we create for people to consume?"

This even applies to the sciences, where it's quickly discovered by even the most innocent of R&D folk that it's far more career stable to sit on a golden goose and force others to license it from you rather than allow everyone to have their own golden geese and now you're stuck creating new things. IP only helps investors because it shows that a company willing to flex its IP muscles that has a good product or popular media under its "ownership" will most likely be quite profitable over time. None of these people are excited about a quality treatment or entertaining art piece, they're excited that they've found something that they can exploit with IP laws. That's it.
So how do you make any money off your art? Patreon is cute & all but I don't think it's enough for most creators.

No one's gonna spend 5 years writing a book if it's not protected.
 
Last edited:
Because you want to write a good story or compose a good song? Do you ever do anything without a paid incentive? More people would actually do those things if they didn't need to worry about companies or individuals suing them into the stone age.

Also, the company you talked about surely used resources of other countless people and institutions to deliver and distribute and research and produce and more; do they all get a slice?

IP laws protect nobody from anything, and they never have.
How the US has developed the Common Law tradition re intellectual property – the US litigation culture in particular – has become an abomination.

But that's a US problem. Don't publish in the US, then litigation like that can't touch you, and you should be safe.

It is a bit of a problem how US civil lawsuits sometimes seem to claim global jurisdiction. Maybe the US should change its laws, align them better with the rest of the world? Seems simpler than forcing things the other way around.
 
So how do you make any money off your art? Patreon is cute & all but I don't think it's enough for most creators.

No one's gonna spend 5 years writing a book if it's not protected.

In the pre-internet era, if you're an artist who produces physical art items (not books or music), you hustle at shows, fairs, exhibitions, if you can afford your own studio it helps, or you consign your work at craft shops.

I sold at craft fairs and consigned my items at several craft stores around town here, over a 12-year period. It takes a LOT of work and self-discipline to do this, because you have to think 6 months ahead. So much of it is seasonal, so I'd be working on Christmas decorations right after Mother's Day and back-to-school/autumn/Halloween stuff in February (I always took January off, both because of the crafting and typing schedules, which were insane in the fall; by January my brain was fried and my hands hurt from so much sewing and typing).

Consignment arrangements were frustrating because the percentage you have to pay the store could vary so much. I was part of a craft co-operative for some years in the '80s, and the fees ranged from 35% if you didn't have a paid membership and didn't work in the store a minimum number of days/month to 20% if you were a paid member, worked in the store, and were on the board of directors. I managed to hustle my way onto the board, paid my annual membership fee, and usually did more than the minimum number of days/month. At the same time I was consigning in other stores, and the trick was to not have the exact same items in more than one place, because everyone put the condition in that you couldn't undercut the prices at their place by selling it cheaper somewhere else.

So the average consignment fees ranged from 25-30%. One guy who was running a second-hand bookstore, when I pitched the idea of consigning my bookmarks and bookends there, informed me that he wanted a 60-40 deal where I got 40 and he got 60. I told him no, that I wouldn't take any deal that was more than 30. At 60, I'd be doing worse than giving them away, because the price would have had to be jacked up to far more than anyone would be willing to pay. He wouldn't budge, so that was that. I walked away.

That craft co-operative is gone now. We decided to stop when the GST came in, in 1990. We were running a physical store, so we would have had to collect and remit the tax and deal with the administrative part of that. The customers wouldn't have been happy, having to pay tax on our items. And given that there were 3 tiers of consignment fees, it would have been a nightmare to add GST into the calculations of what everyone got paid each month.

Along the way, I'd inherited the job of keeping the society's scrapbook - newspaper articles about our group, and anything else that documented our history. Since one of our members was fairly well-known in the community back then, and a couple of other well-known people in town would shop there, that scrapbook contained a bit of local history that wasn't only about us.

That's why, when I realized some years ago that I still had this scrapbook taking up room in my stuff over 20 years after we closed the store and most of the other board members had died, I decided to offer it as a donation to the Museum archives. They asked me to bring it in for evaluation and they'd let me know if they wanted to add it. Sure enough, awhile later they'd made their decision, and all they needed was my written consent as the donor of this material. So I went in, signed a few papers, and it was done.

I still sold at other stores and craft fairs and private commissions for years afterward. It was a harder hustle, though, not having a place where I could have more control over pricing and even what I sold.

Nowadays, of course, people can sell on Etsy, Artfire, Society6, deviantArt, or a hundred other sites, if they don't want to start an independent site. The other day I was looking into Society6, because what you're selling is the pattern, which people can order in a variety of formats - as a clock, blanket, art print, set of coasters, or whatever. You're not selling the physical item yourself, you don't even have to make it. For someone like me who would find it difficult at best to make regular trips to the post office to mail stuff out, this would be a much easier arrangement. Since it wouldn't be original needlepoint patterns that someone with patience and graph paper could reverse-engineer, I'm considering trying it. I'm nowhere near the artist my grandmother was, but I did produce a decent pencil crayon rendition of the view from the porch of our cabin on Okanagan Lake once. Lake, mountains, trees... that was 50 years ago, but I've still got pencil crayons, paper, a dozen photo albums for inspiration, and a good memory.

I just need a good idea for designs that would work for a variety of 3-D items, and to study the administrative angle. I've bought stuff from that company before, and they do turn out items of sturdy quality (yes, I bought an art print of penguins ;)). Rent and everything else is going up at an insane rate, so if this works, it would help a bit.

Anyway, that's musing out loud at this point. But at least I could try to sell my own original artwork. Writing fanfiction is a hobby that I can't legally sell. 3-D needlepoint started as a hobby but turned into a job.
 
So how do you make any money off your art? Patreon is cute & all but I don't think it's enough for most creators.

No one's gonna spend 5 years writing a book if it's not protected.
Why not? There are people who make plenty of money off of donations and selling physical media they make, and plenty more write/make art for free without the intention of charging at all that spans far more than five years in scope.

My question about your last point is: protected from what?
 
This even applies to the sciences, where it's quickly discovered by even the most innocent of R&D folk that it's far more career stable to sit on a golden goose and force others to license it from you rather than allow everyone to have their own golden geese and now you're stuck creating new things. IP only helps investors because it shows that a company willing to flex its IP muscles that has a good product or popular media under its "ownership" will most likely be quite profitable over time. None of these people are excited about a quality treatment or entertaining art piece, they're excited that they've found something that they can exploit with IP laws. That's it.

Those R&D folk would be spared having to come up with new things, because they would be out of a job. If investors cannot make a profit from it, the R&D department will be a cost factor which will be cut at the earliest opportunity.
 
Those R&D folk would be spared having to come up with new things, because they would be out of a job. If investors cannot make a profit from it, the R&D department will be a cost factor which will be cut at the earliest opportunity.
Yeah I mean I don't like it, but this is 100% what will happen. Even if the company ends up regretting it and reversing course, the damage will be done.
 
Top Bottom