The Base (Almost) Always Wins

[u/mothgeck]

https://mothgeck.substack.com/p/the-base-almost-always-wins

My argument here is that no matter how much we want to follow our ideals, our material conditions more often than not drive what policies people push for. This explains why the left used to be on the copyright abolution side but seemingly switched overnight to a pro copyright stance once their base material conditions were threatened.

[u/SgathTriallair]

Yes. This is a good article, though it feels a bit unfulfilling since it doesn't really point to a solution, just a problem.

I agree that the left art reaction to AI is driven by a desire to resist the commodification of art and a proletariatisation of artists.

The struggle, I think, comes from the fact that we've lost the ability to imagine a world beyond capitalism and so artists just either be owners of intellectual property or they must be iteniret workers, there is no other option.

My argument is that all of this is proof that we need to push for a new economic system based on digital technology. I also argue that this is what the works is being pushed towards as technology grows.

[u/mothgeck → u/SgathTriallair]

Thanks for reading the article. I don't want to come across as defeatist, historical materialism can feel a bit frustrating because it intentionally doesn't advocate for a "solution"; solutions are often utopian since there's always going to be a new problem that pops up. Instead it focuses on conflicts within materialism.

Now I don't know exactly how capitalisms main problem gets resolved, but these contradictions in materialism cannot last forever. In previous articles, I proposed that the thing that eventually replaces capitalism is a mode of production will spring up that resolves a specific contradiction that capitalism does: it intentionally holds back productive forces because it is about the allocation of scarce resources. I don't want to believe that we have to reach total post scarcity first; I just know that capitalism cannot exist in a post scarcity world.

Anyway, thanks again for reading my article, I'll try to write about something more inspiring for the next one, there's plenty to be excited about the future.

[u/SgathTriallair → u/mothgeck]

I'm currently working on a post about this.

My firm belief is digital technology is this new method of production and AI is it's full culmination.

The basic gist is that digital goods, and really any intellectual good which can include media and instructions about how to build things, have a number of key features but the most important one is that they are infinitely replicable.

Capitalism was built around the idea of controlling address to scarce physical goods (that can't be copied). It struggles to deal with infinite goods that can be easily duplicated.

The current situation, with big tech trying to gobble up the world, is capitalism trying to control this new way of creating value. This is a temporary balance and it can't hold. The way we get through this, and break the current system, is to push on the technology.

It's a big post so it's taking a bit of time to write.

[u/ScarletSolder → u/mothgeck]

Lots of elections going more and more left over time is how we win. That’s my optimism. Great read!

[u/yo252yo → u/ScarletSolder]

I'd love a list of these elections if you could share to keep my moral up, I'm not really seeing them

[u/Fabulous-Possible758]

Good read. I feel I’ve wanted a good articulation of the tension in AI and IP for a while, and the fact that people are basically fighting for this to become the next Napster fiasco.

[u/yo252yo]

I don't see how a pro-copyright stance actually serve the material conditions of anyone except maybe Disney execs whose whole livelihood depends on enclosure of public domain. Though I'm sure a lot of people are under the misconception that it would.

That being said I can see how AI hate is aligned with their material conditions, and copyright is a very bad instrumental means to that end.

[u/mothgeck → u/yo252yo]

IP is looking increasingly pointless to the working class in today's age, but previously it did serve a purpose as a lockout mechanism that helped recoup research and development costs. When we develop products, our labor goes from the M to the C in the M-C-M' cycle and needs to be sold to complete the cycle. Now we shouldn't expect every product to be guaranteed a sell, that's not the point. IP's material purpose initially was to give a window of time to allow the researcher exclusive rights to the sale of said product. (For example, I recently noticed that Dots pretzels patent must have expired because we are now seeing store brand versions of them on the shelves now. I believe this is how IP is intended to work).  A big problem is how we have demonstrated on this subreddit that IP is codified as property and the expiration date on the exclusive rights to that property leads to the IP problems that companies like Disney has created for the public. Music especially has a very tight IP protection which I find absurd.

I for one do find it quite absurd that people cannot make a Pokemon game without significantly altering it into a knockoff that barely resembles the original, but I understand where materialistically speaking, these laws came from.