Wednesday, December 20
Information rights 2: On which democracy thrives
CENSORSHIP, MEDIA, INFORMATION, ECONOMICS
The note on which I ended Part 1 opens up a lot of questions. Pretty much everything that comes under the notion of intellectual property will be completely redefined by socialism, from journalism to music. I've briefly discussed the special position of information as something that can be spread at no cost of production: the guiding principle of a socialist society, in order to maximise utility (i.e. the economist's point of view) and to maximise freedom (pardon me while I nab the ideological high ground), will be that all information can be provided free of charge (except for significant costs such as printing hard copy, etc.). But unlike capitalists, we make a distinction between the the products of bespoke research (from government statistics to scientific papers) and creative works such as poetry, music, even blog posts. The former is what is deemed to be essential to the survival of our society and their production will be paid for in hours worked like anything else (and, indeed, basically the same way as we do now). The latter may not be paid at all.
Rand fans may gasp and claim that we would therefore end up with no music ever being written, no art made, no opinions formed. After all, no-one would work if there wasn't any remuneration, right? Except that's the exact opposite of how the creative process works. We create because we enjoy the process or care about the result. And it's that commitment that makes what we create worthwhile. Sure, some people can write music because they're being paid to and then come up with brilliant stuff, but that is because of their talents; left to their own devices, who's to say they wouldn't acheive the same?
All that said, I'm not sure we need to be so purist in our attitude. Why can't entertainment be considered a useful social good? Where does creativity merge with more 'objective' usefulness? There are a few models open to us here, and we may end up with a mixture.
The most primitivist position (I do not use the term pejoratively, though I am not a primitivist) is to simply say that all entertainment must be unpaid, voluntary, and at the individual's expense. Unfortunately, this limits the field of creativity by quite a bit. Large undertakings, including even small films, magazines and newspapers that are in the least bit ambitious, and most concerts, will be impossible. While for some, the idea of very down-to-earth and community-based entertainment is attractive, this may not be everyone's cup of tea; encouraging these things is all very well, but not when it's to the de facto exclusion of everything else!
Another model worth considering is where certain costs of production can be taken into account. The best way to explain this is if I wanted to start up a newspaper featuring columns from many conspiracy theories and so forth, then I would create a firm which would loan capital (assuming I had evidence that there was a desire for this sort of media); this firm would print off stories from 'journalists' - but crucially, all of these would be volunteers; the firm would then charge for the costs of the ink, the paper, etc., but not the 'labour' of those whose point of view was being pushed. Their reward is seeing their ideas in print. Note that there would still be no such thing as copyright, and the contributors would be expected to permit free distribution in parallel (and probably to put the text on a website themselves). Actually, that's pretty much how many left-wing and socialist papers work nowadays, including the bit about offering their entire content free online.
Another model would be what we might call a "hobbyists' prize". Though we will predominantly expect our cultural artisans to work for the love of their craft, we will recognise the most successful (the decision would have to be scrupulously democratic, of course) by small cash prizes - not enough to live off, but perhaps enough to give our artists some encouragement when they're flagging. Perhaps amateur computer programmers could submit their creations to occasional competitions in the hope of winning a prize.
Finally, it may be possible for society to employ people for their creativity. Let's say you were in a small band which had recently become popular. Based on some figures and perhaps some public discussion, you might be asked to come into a studio for a few hours and record a CD track or two. You'd then be paid for your time, and shortly after, the mp3s would be all over the net; society will be paying you for your time spent giving things back to society. Or perhaps if you were a journalist, you might be asked to write a piece on a specific issue, you might be offered a small financial reward. Eventually, you'll move seamlessly from part-timer to full-timer, so long as you're good enough.
Personally, I think our starting point for a socialist society should be a situation in which all of these are incorporated. I really feel that opinion and politics should be kept well away from money and enfranchisement by the public/community/state/whatever you want to call it, and so I'd follow the 'primitivist' line on that one. But with regards to other forms of 'intellectual property', this is not necessary. Certainly a post-capitalist society will begin by needing economic incentives for people in their daily lives. The second point overcomes the primitivist problem with organised undertakings, The third point ties in very well with the fourth, as you can begin people in prize competitions for amateurs, and then offer them employment based on that.
I don't think there's a final solution though. I'd like to see a socialism in which we gradually move towards all our work being done for the love of it, though I don't know if we can really manage that far as humans (though it has to be said, whether we can or not, I don't think we could hope to forsee the answer from the greed-obsessed society of today). The role of information and culture in society would, in a way, then be revolutionary: it would lead the way in making all our contributions to society meaningful and enjoyable experiences that we will seek out and aim to do well at both for the love of the task and the good that comes from it.
CENSORSHIP, MEDIA, INFORMATION, ECONOMICS
The note on which I ended Part 1 opens up a lot of questions. Pretty much everything that comes under the notion of intellectual property will be completely redefined by socialism, from journalism to music. I've briefly discussed the special position of information as something that can be spread at no cost of production: the guiding principle of a socialist society, in order to maximise utility (i.e. the economist's point of view) and to maximise freedom (pardon me while I nab the ideological high ground), will be that all information can be provided free of charge (except for significant costs such as printing hard copy, etc.). But unlike capitalists, we make a distinction between the the products of bespoke research (from government statistics to scientific papers) and creative works such as poetry, music, even blog posts. The former is what is deemed to be essential to the survival of our society and their production will be paid for in hours worked like anything else (and, indeed, basically the same way as we do now). The latter may not be paid at all.
Rand fans may gasp and claim that we would therefore end up with no music ever being written, no art made, no opinions formed. After all, no-one would work if there wasn't any remuneration, right? Except that's the exact opposite of how the creative process works. We create because we enjoy the process or care about the result. And it's that commitment that makes what we create worthwhile. Sure, some people can write music because they're being paid to and then come up with brilliant stuff, but that is because of their talents; left to their own devices, who's to say they wouldn't acheive the same?
All that said, I'm not sure we need to be so purist in our attitude. Why can't entertainment be considered a useful social good? Where does creativity merge with more 'objective' usefulness? There are a few models open to us here, and we may end up with a mixture.
The most primitivist position (I do not use the term pejoratively, though I am not a primitivist) is to simply say that all entertainment must be unpaid, voluntary, and at the individual's expense. Unfortunately, this limits the field of creativity by quite a bit. Large undertakings, including even small films, magazines and newspapers that are in the least bit ambitious, and most concerts, will be impossible. While for some, the idea of very down-to-earth and community-based entertainment is attractive, this may not be everyone's cup of tea; encouraging these things is all very well, but not when it's to the de facto exclusion of everything else!
Another model worth considering is where certain costs of production can be taken into account. The best way to explain this is if I wanted to start up a newspaper featuring columns from many conspiracy theories and so forth, then I would create a firm which would loan capital (assuming I had evidence that there was a desire for this sort of media); this firm would print off stories from 'journalists' - but crucially, all of these would be volunteers; the firm would then charge for the costs of the ink, the paper, etc., but not the 'labour' of those whose point of view was being pushed. Their reward is seeing their ideas in print. Note that there would still be no such thing as copyright, and the contributors would be expected to permit free distribution in parallel (and probably to put the text on a website themselves). Actually, that's pretty much how many left-wing and socialist papers work nowadays, including the bit about offering their entire content free online.
Another model would be what we might call a "hobbyists' prize". Though we will predominantly expect our cultural artisans to work for the love of their craft, we will recognise the most successful (the decision would have to be scrupulously democratic, of course) by small cash prizes - not enough to live off, but perhaps enough to give our artists some encouragement when they're flagging. Perhaps amateur computer programmers could submit their creations to occasional competitions in the hope of winning a prize.
Finally, it may be possible for society to employ people for their creativity. Let's say you were in a small band which had recently become popular. Based on some figures and perhaps some public discussion, you might be asked to come into a studio for a few hours and record a CD track or two. You'd then be paid for your time, and shortly after, the mp3s would be all over the net; society will be paying you for your time spent giving things back to society. Or perhaps if you were a journalist, you might be asked to write a piece on a specific issue, you might be offered a small financial reward. Eventually, you'll move seamlessly from part-timer to full-timer, so long as you're good enough.
Personally, I think our starting point for a socialist society should be a situation in which all of these are incorporated. I really feel that opinion and politics should be kept well away from money and enfranchisement by the public/community/state/whatever you want to call it, and so I'd follow the 'primitivist' line on that one. But with regards to other forms of 'intellectual property', this is not necessary. Certainly a post-capitalist society will begin by needing economic incentives for people in their daily lives. The second point overcomes the primitivist problem with organised undertakings, The third point ties in very well with the fourth, as you can begin people in prize competitions for amateurs, and then offer them employment based on that.
I don't think there's a final solution though. I'd like to see a socialism in which we gradually move towards all our work being done for the love of it, though I don't know if we can really manage that far as humans (though it has to be said, whether we can or not, I don't think we could hope to forsee the answer from the greed-obsessed society of today). The role of information and culture in society would, in a way, then be revolutionary: it would lead the way in making all our contributions to society meaningful and enjoyable experiences that we will seek out and aim to do well at both for the love of the task and the good that comes from it.
# posted by Phugebrins @ 04:25 
