Should Intellectual Property exist?

[Joij21]

If you were 20,000 leagues under the sea, or on Alpha Centauri, that is.

So you think getting away from everyone else and fleeing is intrinsically violent???

 

[Igaryd]

The first "Red Scare" in the US lasted three years 1917-1920 and was prompted by the Russian revolution of 1917. Then it went away. The second one began after WW2 as the Soviet Union put up the Iron Curtain"; Mao took over China and Korea was divided. It was led by Joe McCarthy and lasted from 1947-54. The wrongs were righted and "normalcy" re-imposed. Both were short-lived. McCarthyism is still remembered and serves as a deterrent to it happening again.

Except we are on the verge of war with Russia and anyone who acts questions the wisdom of such a move is called an agent of Putin no matter how distasteful he finds Putin's actions.

 

[Igaryd]

Many books forbid copying in part, even for personal use, without explicit consent. Would you feel the same about copying a song to listen to? Or a movie?

Generally once I've heard a song a few times i can sing the melody, if it has one not always a given these days.

 

[Birdjaguar]

Except we are on the verge of war with Russia and anyone who acts questions the wisdom of such a move is called an agent of Putin no matter how distasteful he finds Putin's actions.

I don't think we are on the verge of war with Russia. What makes you think we are?

 

[Angst]

hooo boy how the hell did i miss this thread

short answer, longer answer later perhaps when i'm not making pizza:

within a capitalist system and a system of investment, where investment drives innovation, IP is very important to procure innovation. before IP, innovation happened of course, but the nature and worth of knowledge was esoteric. meaning that the means to reproduce some method or technology or whatever was kept secret. it wasn't illegal to reconstruct some technology you saw elsewhere and if succesfully reproduce just riding it. the point of IP is to get people to do stuff because within a system of capital they're guaranteed income for a while if their innovation is succesful. this basic idea is pretty good.

there are some huge caveats however. first off, IP has been warped into a frankenstein monster of abuses. it has gone so far it no longer reflects innovation and human activity, but is a tool for abuse, whether it be copyright trolls of stuff like disney. secondly, IP doesn't, and has never, reflected human practice of creativity. in the arts, this matters a lot. back in the day, the gatekeeping for income when doing artistic practice was to be able to do it. but with the printing press and grammophone has completely changed that fact. back in the day, people didn't give a single poop about you reproducing "their" piece. today, after art is increasingly storable, this is not the fact of the matter anymore. the resulting situation is complicated, but i'll note that it does not in any way reflect how humans have made stuff for a hundred thousand years, and it's usually bad policy to do stuff against human nature. and i don't mean human nature in the sense of the fallacy of appealing to nature, i mean that the current legal framework does the same to creatives as it would have been doing banning kissing. technology of course changes behavior and has to be taken into account, but when there's a question of artificiality that doesn't serve the general populace, it's time to abandon that crap.

of course, it'd been better if IP was more akin to its first iteration, say getting a guarantee for your creation for like 25 years (no not a goddamn lifetime, stop bootlicking disney) and then it goes public.

that said, the appeals that IP drives innovation is... well, it's kind of true. but it's only true in the sense that people are only able to innovate and create expensive projects when there's investment needed that guarantees profit. the idea that writers and musicians would just stop their practice if they didn't own their stuff is asinine. they can't help but create. it's why they chose poverty in life by virtue of going into the arts.

 

[GenMarshall]

We have seen and live in a living breathing example of capitalism at work. We fully understand its strengths and weaknesses. We even know how to fix its worst aspects. We just don't do so very easily. The failure to explain how more socialism+ would actually work and change people's daily lives prevents it from being taken seriously as an alternative. All we hear are broad generalities about sharing and equality. That leads me to believe that those folks have no idea how to actually get us from what we have now to where they want the world to go. Until the "we need more socialism" folks can figure out what living under their system will be like, they are just spinning a Disney fantasy. To do that they have to have a plan for what will change, what will go away and what will be new at the community and personal level. "Oh we will figure it all as we go" is a display of ignorance both about people and the system they are advocating for.

I'm largely against the implementation of socialism since it will lead to authoritarian communism where I'm forced to relinquish my property and savings, obliterate my individuality and have less freedoms, live in the pod, eat the bugs, and own nothing. Then there's the violent revolution aspect which I'm very much opposed to. Given the current state of identity politics and wokeness, I'd be deemed as a class enemy because of my "privileges" and belonging to the "oppressor class". reading about the Chinese Cultural Revolution and the struggle sessions that occurred in the 1960s leads me to conclude that history would repeat itself, but instead of the upper classes being put through denunciation rallies, I'd be white straight cishet men that would end up through the wringer.

You feel good saluting the flag that put.....Think it's a great country do you? Oink, oink.

You can take your denunciation rallies and shove it up your arse, I refuse to take part in your silly little struggle session.

 

[cardgame]

The only people who want you to own nothing are the capitalists who already own everything and want to keep it that way. The phrase was coined to describe a potential future under capitalism, and in fact, has nothing to say on the matter of property rights. It's about access to capital.

 

[NinjaCow64]

live in the pod, eat the bugs, and own nothing.

Gen, its because you say stuff like this that nobody takes your commitment to “becoming a social democrat” seriously. These are far-right conspiracy theory dogwhistles.

Given the current state of identity politics and wokeness,

lol

I'd be deemed as a class enemy because of my "privileges" and belonging to the "oppressor class". reading about the Chinese Cultural Revolution and the struggle sessions that occurred in the 1960s leads me to conclude that history would repeat itself, but instead of the upper classes being put through denunciation rallies, I'd be white straight cishet men that would end up through the wringer.

The purely hypothetical scenario of you getting cultural revoltioned by the Red Guards is much more important to consider than the actual real oppression that is happening to real people right now.

 

[Birdjaguar]

Moderator Action: Please stay civil with one another. There is no need to make this personal.

 

[Gorbles]

So like most people, since most people are invested in the status quo. Meaning demanding socialism would be calling for violence against most people.

My point is, demanding any social change above a certain threshold creates violence.

You're trying to claim this is unique to socialism. You're wrong.

So you think getting away from everyone else and fleeing is intrinsically violent???

We were discussing society. My assumption is that your suggestions were for a society in these places.

If you're just talking about yourself, we're no longer talking about any society. If you're talking about the plot of Bioshock, well, anyone who's played that game knows how "meritocracy under the sea" works out there

I'm largely against the implementation of socialism since it will lead to authoritarian communism where I'm forced to relinquish my property and savings, obliterate my individuality and have less freedoms, live in the pod, eat the bugs, and own nothing.

No it won't. These kinds of fundamental misunderstandings is why I offered in good faith to share what knowledge I could with you. Not even preach; just share information and let you come to your own conclusions.

But here we are, with you going on about "eating bugs" and the like. There's no discussion to be had with these kinds of tropes. It's way too antagonistic, sorry.

 

[PPQ_Purple]

My point is, demanding any social change above a certain threshold creates violence.

I think it's more the case that it requires violence rather than create it. As in the only social change that can ever happen peacefully is one that the elites want anyway. Anything beyond that requires either violence or a genuine threat of it. That is why peaceful protest movements often come in pairs with a civil side and a violent side that makes the civil one look more palatable.

 

[soundjata]

I'm largely against the implementation of socialism since it will lead to authoritarian communism where I'm forced to relinquish my property and savings, obliterate my individuality and have less freedoms [...]

Great post!

Your position is the epitome of conservatism. May I ask a couple of questions?

- What are those 'freedoms' you currently have and you would lose in a non-capitalist environment?
- What is your 'individuality' and how could it be obliterated (by an external force as you seem to imply)?


Apart from that I know a little about the chinese 'sculptural evolution'
It is NOT a social system nor a political organisation. If you call it socialism you are hurting -again- so many dead people
It was just pure violence... In every direction... Children torturing adults...
This violence was directed by mao himself (who asked the youth start a civil war) for the sake of his own individual protection against his closest enemies.
> Input = unleashed individuality
> Output = extreme social violence.
> ...
> Long term consequence = fastest capitalistic growth ever witnessed by human kind!

See?
Ain't it the proof that Capitalism is essentially a violent doctrine?
Can we agree violence always originates from individualism (and other chimeras like nationalism, which is the same sentiment in disguise)?

 

[GenMarshall]

Your position is the epitome of conservatism. May I ask a couple of questions?

I don't place any position in any political spectrum right now. I'm pretty much hovering around the centrist spectrum of "I just want to game grill for God sakes!". Though I'm more or less considering having my own Sakoku Phase and going Galt to escape the culture war.

What are those 'freedoms' you currently have and you would lose in a non-capitalist environment?

I honestly do not know what freedoms I would loose that's outside of the culture war. My biggest concern is that my property and savings would be confiscated and redistributed to the masses. Some say it's me conflating "personal" and "private" property, but here in the US, the terms are synonymous. My car is my car, not the people's car. My computer is my computer, not the people's computer. I know very little about "Personal" vs "Private" property in a socialistic sense.

What is your 'individuality' and how could it be obliterated (by an external force as you seem to imply)?

I use "individuality" to contrast against collectivism. I am myself, not just some white cishet straight man.

Ain't it the proof that Capitalism is essentially a violent doctrine?

One can argue the same for socialism and communism, and other non-economic ideologies. No doctrine is free from any kind of violence.

Can we agree violence always originates from individualism (and other chimeras like nationalism, which is the same sentiment in disguise)?

That depends on what you mean by individualism. I see it as the opposite of collectivism, freedom of action for individuals over collective and/or state control, and the principle of being independent.

 

[NinjaCow64]

I know very little about "Personal" vs "Private" property in a socialistic sense.

Here is a four minute video that succinctly explains the difference between personal and private property.

No socialist government is realistically going to want to nationalise your computer or toothbrush.

 

[Bestbank Tiger]

But here we are, with you going on about "eating bugs" and the like. There's no discussion to be had with these kinds of tropes. It's way too antagonistic, sorry.

They're literally pushing "eat the bugs".

Why we need to give insects the role they deserve in our food systems

From more sustainable production methods to providing a healthy food source, insects could help feed a growing global population in a climate-friendly way

www.weforum.org

That's their own words, not an alt right conspiracy theory unless Steve Bannon hacked their site and planted it there.

 

[PhroX]

I think it's also worth looking at what's happening to private property under capitalism. Take video games: you don't actually own most games you "buy" these days. You just have a license to play them. They're not your property. And this concept is happening all over the place - capitalists have realised its far more profitable to "sell" things while actually keeping control of them and locking the "owners" into restrictive contracts.

And of course there's housing. Good luck taking ownership of a house in capitalistic countries these days.

 

[Joij21]

We were discussing society. My assumption is that your suggestions were for a society in these places.

And it's violent how? Other than the elements which are a natural risk, the enterprise isn't human vs. human violent like in a civil war or revolution.

If you're talking about the plot of Bioshock, well, anyone who's played that game knows how "meritocracy under the sea" works out there

Well that's simply fiction with fantasy elements. It's not real.

My point is, demanding any social change above a certain threshold creates violence.

You're trying to claim this is unique to socialism. You're wrong.

I'm not claiming it's unique to socialism, but socialism "requires" it in a similar manner to how Islamic fundamentalism also "requires" it. At least other ideological movements usually don't start out looking for trouble.

Plus it's not like one's struggle for the socialism would even be worth it since it's designed to fail (into communism) so to force even MORE struggle after most people would simply like a stable system that just works.

 

[Joij21]

I think it's also worth looking at what's happening to private property under capitalism. Take video games: you don't actually own most games you "buy" these days. You just have a license to play them. They're not your property.

Which is an absolutely pathetic excuse to start a civil war and start killing people.

Over video games!!! I mean come on!

 

[danjuno]

They used video games as an example, plenty of other things being sold now that you used to actually own but are basically just renting. Cars (which you need to live in 99% of the US), electronics for work, etc.

 

[Joij21]

It was just pure violence... In every direction... Children torturing adults...
This violence was directed by mao himself (who asked the youth start a civil war) for the sake of his own individual protection against his closest enemies.

Yeah well you know what? This is what happens in literally every socialist revolution, then you try to backpedal and say "oh it's Mao's individuality here!" "this is why individuality is bad!" All without realizing that it was the socialist revolution which put him in a position of absolute power whereby his "individuality" could therefore be a threat, but then instead you somehow end up using it to blame capitalism.

If the system wasn't so violently overthrown to begin with there would have been natural "checks and balances" in place against any leader who wishes to let his individuality and ego go too far. But the violence of the revolution and it's removal of checks and balances while subsequently reorganizing all property to the state is intentionally done that way so the socialist state intentionally collapses into communism.

According to Karl Marx there's supposed to be like another Civil War to go from Socialism to Communism. So technically what Mao was doing with the youths was all part of the plan. To cause class conflict between the young and old in China until things escalate and either the old retaliate and kill off the young or the young succeed and finish killing off the old, then whichever age group wins out abolishes and overthrows the socialist dictatorship and it's red princes who now become entrenched and wish to stay forever on the socialist mode of production. In the aftermath the victors impose a communist community in it's stead. The Cultural Revolution was a perfect example of Red Machiavellianism which is the true core of leftist political thought.