Well, you certainly have a point, but I cannot agree with you completely.
In my opinion, the "capitalization" of the artistic activity has brought our world to what it is now, and I am far from believing this is healthy. An artist is who GIVES BIRTH to a piece of art. This is his primary quality. The market implicitly (via money) links that piece of art with the ability of that person to feed his family. That is to say one person will live better because his pieces of art SELL BETTER. The other is starving, because his ones do not sell. Because in capitalizm the sellability of your art is dependent on the mob.
Let me present you with an analogy: imagine yourself being an expectant mother to a wealthy Oriental Sultan's child. If your child is a boy and the Sultan likes him - great! But if you "accidentally" have a girl... oh... poor you. In some really bad cases you might be stoned to death.
Of course, in reality you have a choice. But that choice is, in fact, between believing that what you give birth to is right and feeding the public with what they like. In the first case you may be end up leading quite a miserable life. In the other - you loose your artistic freedom.
Economical ineffectiveness of Socialistic system is the best evidence.
I'm afraid you were made to think what we had in the USSR was Socialistic system. In fact, it was far from that. If you want an example of a real socialist country, go to Sweden, Norway or Denmark. That's where they have the closest approximation. They don't have any centralized distribution of goods there. Funny enough, all of those countries even have kings! :)
There are laws protecting authors, so it is possible theoretically to protect information.
No. Or, if you like it this way, this possibility only exists in theory. It is the nature of the information, its intrinsic property, that disallows any human law-controlled restrictions on it. Its speed, its volatility is completely incomparable. Remember "samizdat"? There could be no way to stop it. No law could make you look into everyone's mind - this is the limitation.
And my point was: if the system can't control things, it should not take such a responsibility. If we can easily track some type of crime, we may punish the person for doing it using the mechanics of law. But it it's going through your hands - what can you do? A law which is unobeyable/unenforcible should go. It's a generic fault in the system, not the classical "insufficient funds spent" problem.
Of course, if we unite all the countries under the Star Spangled Banner, we could have much-much better security... but I believe, this is not your true intention :)
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
timeasmymeasure
no subject
Date: 2004-07-11 03:09 pm (UTC)In my opinion, the "capitalization" of the artistic activity has brought our world to what it is now, and I am far from believing this is healthy. An artist is who GIVES BIRTH to a piece of art. This is his primary quality. The market implicitly (via money) links that piece of art with the ability of that person to feed his family. That is to say one person will live better because his pieces of art SELL BETTER. The other is starving, because his ones do not sell. Because in capitalizm the sellability of your art is dependent on the mob.
Let me present you with an analogy: imagine yourself being an expectant mother to a wealthy Oriental Sultan's child. If your child is a boy and the Sultan likes him - great! But if you "accidentally" have a girl... oh... poor you. In some really bad cases you might be stoned to death.
Of course, in reality you have a choice. But that choice is, in fact, between believing that what you give birth to is right and feeding the public with what they like. In the first case you may be end up leading quite a miserable life. In the other - you loose your artistic freedom.
Economical ineffectiveness of Socialistic system is the best evidence.
I'm afraid you were made to think what we had in the USSR was Socialistic system. In fact, it was far from that. If you want an example of a real socialist country, go to Sweden, Norway or Denmark. That's where they have the closest approximation. They don't have any centralized distribution of goods there. Funny enough, all of those countries even have kings! :)
There are laws protecting authors, so it is possible theoretically to protect information.
No. Or, if you like it this way, this possibility only exists in theory. It is the nature of the information, its intrinsic property, that disallows any human law-controlled restrictions on it. Its speed, its volatility is completely incomparable. Remember "samizdat"? There could be no way to stop it. No law could make you look into everyone's mind - this is the limitation.
And my point was: if the system can't control things, it should not take such a responsibility. If we can easily track some type of crime, we may punish the person for doing it using the mechanics of law. But it it's going through your hands - what can you do? A law which is unobeyable/unenforcible should go. It's a generic fault in the system, not the classical "insufficient funds spent" problem.
Of course, if we unite all the countries under the Star Spangled Banner, we could have much-much better security... but I believe, this is not your true intention :)