Log in

View Full Version : 'Slaves of the Internet, Unite!'



Popular Front of Judea
27th October 2013, 23:27
Yes it is a whine but this article raises a number of hard questions about prefiguration, economic transition, and technological change.. As a 40-something who has finally purchased a mattress of his very own his observation about sleeping on a futon at age 46 strikes home. (Oh and yes I get the irony of cutting and pasting the article. If you guys would only follow the links...)


NOT long ago, I received, in a single week, three (3) invitations to write an original piece for publication or give a prepared speech in exchange for no ($0.00) money. As with stinkbugs, it’s not any one instance of this request but their sheer number and relentlessness that make them so tiresome. It also makes composing a polite response a heroic exercise in restraint.

People who would consider it a bizarre breach of conduct to expect anyone to give them a haircut or a can of soda at no cost will ask you, with a straight face and a clear conscience, whether you wouldn’t be willing to write an essay or draw an illustration for them for nothing. They often start by telling you how much they admire your work, although not enough, evidently, to pay one cent for it. “Unfortunately we don’t have the budget to offer compensation to our contributors...” is how the pertinent line usually starts. But just as often, they simply omit any mention of payment.

A familiar figure in one’s 20s is the club owner or event promoter who explains to your band that they won’t be paying you in money, man, because you’re getting paid in the far more valuable currency of exposure. This same figure reappears over the years, like the devil, in different guises — with shorter hair, a better suit — as the editor of a Web site or magazine, dismissing the issue of payment as an irrelevant quibble and impressing upon you how many hits they get per day, how many eyeballs, what great exposure it’ll offer. “Artist Dies of Exposure” goes the rueful joke.

In fairness, most of the people who ask me to write things for free, with the exception of Arianna Huffington, aren’t the Man; they’re editors of struggling magazines or sites, or school administrators who are probably telling me the truth about their budgets. The economy is still largely in ruins, thanks to the people who “drive the economy” by doing imaginary things on Wall Street, and there just isn’t much money left to spare for people who do actual things anymore.

This is partly a side effect of our information economy, in which “paying for things” is a quaint, discredited old 20th-century custom, like calling people after having sex with them. The first time I ever heard the word “content” used in its current context, I understood that all my artist friends and I — henceforth, “content providers” — were essentially extinct. This contemptuous coinage is predicated on the assumption that it’s the delivery system that matters, relegating what used to be called “art” — writing, music, film, photography, illustration — to the status of filler, stuff to stick between banner ads.

Just as the atom bomb was the weapon that was supposed to render war obsolete, the Internet seems like capitalism’s ultimate feat of self-destructive genius, an economic doomsday device rendering it impossible for anyone to ever make a profit off anything again. It’s especially hopeless for those whose work is easily digitized and accessed free of charge. I now contribute to some of the most prestigious online publications in the English-speaking world, for which I am paid the same amount as, if not less than, I was paid by my local alternative weekly when I sold my first piece of writing for print in 1989. More recently, I had the essay equivalent of a hit single — endlessly linked to, forwarded and reposted. A friend of mine joked, wistfully, “If you had a dime for every time someone posted that ...” Calculating the theoretical sum of those dimes, it didn’t seem all that funny.

I’ve been trying to understand the mentality that leads people who wouldn’t ask a stranger to give them a keychain or a Twizzler to ask me to write them a thousand words for nothing. I have to admit my empathetic imagination is failing me here. I suppose people who aren’t artists assume that being one must be fun since, after all, we do choose to do it despite the fact that no one pays us. They figure we must be flattered to have someone ask us to do our little thing we already do.

I will freely admit that writing beats baling hay or going door-to-door for a living, but it’s still shockingly unenjoyable work. I spent 20 years and wrote thousands of pages learning the trivial craft of putting sentences together. My parents blew tens of thousands of 1980s dollars on tuition at a prestigious institution to train me for this job. They also put my sister the pulmonologist through medical school, and as far as I know nobody ever asks her to perform a quick lobectomy — doesn’t have to be anything fancy, maybe just in her spare time, whatever she can do would be great — because it’ll help get her name out there.

Maybe they’re asking in the collaborative, D.I.Y. spirit that allegedly characterizes the artistic community. I have read Lewis Hyde’s “The Gift,” and participated in a gift economy for 20 years, swapping zines and minicomics with friends and colleagues, contributing to little literary magazines, doing illustrations for bands and events and causes, posting a decade’s worth of cartoons and essays on my Web site free of charge. Not getting paid for things in your 20s is glumly expected, even sort of cool; not getting paid in your 40s, when your back is starting to hurt and you are still sleeping on a futon, considerably less so. Let’s call the first 20 years of my career a gift. Now I am 46, and would like a bed.

Practicalities aside, money is also how our culture defines value, and being told that what you do is of no ($0.00) value to the society you live in is, frankly, demoralizing. Even sort of insulting. And of course when you live in a culture that treats your work as frivolous you can’t help but internalize some of that devaluation and think of yourself as something less than a bona fide grown-up.

I know I sound like some middle-aged sourpuss who’s forgotten why he ever wanted to do this in the first place. But I’m secretly not as mercenary as I’m trying to pretend. One of the three people who asked me to do something for nothing that dispiriting week was a graduate student in a social work program asking me if I’d speak to her class. I first sent her my boilerplate demurral, but soon found myself mulling over the topic she’d suggested, involuntarily thinking up things to say. I had gotten interested. Oh, dammit, I thought. I knew then I was going to do the talk. And after all, they were student social workers, who were never going to make much money either because they’d chosen to go into the business, which our society also deems worthless, of trying to help people. Also, she was very pretty.

“Let us not kid ourselves,” Professor Vladimir Nabokov reminds us. “Let us remember that literature is of no practical value whatsoever. ... ” But practical value isn’t the only kind of value. Ours is a mixed economy, with the gift economy of the arts existing (if not exactly flourishing) within the inhospitable conditions of a market economy, like the fragile black market in human decency that keeps civilization going despite the pitiless dictates of self-interest.

My field of expertise is complaining, not answers. I know there’s no point in demanding that businesspeople pay artists for their work, any more than there is in politely asking stink bugs or rhinoviruses to quit it already. It’s their job to be rapacious and shameless. But they can get away with paying nothing only for the same reason so many sleazy guys keep trying to pick up women by insulting them: because it keeps working on someone. There is a bottomless supply of ambitious young artists in all media who believe the line about exposure, or who are simply so thrilled at the prospect of publication that they’re happy to do it free of charge.

I STILL remember how this felt: the first piece I ever got nationally published was in a scholarly journal that paid in contributors’ copies, but I’ve never had a happier moment in my career. And it’s not strictly true that you never benefit from exposure — being published in The New York Times helped get me an agent, who got me a book deal, which got me some dates. But let it be noted that The Times also pays in the form of money, albeit in very modest amounts.

So I’m writing this not only in the hope that everyone will cross me off the list of writers to hit up for free content but, more important, to make a plea to my younger colleagues. As an older, more accomplished, equally unsuccessful artist, I beseech you, don’t give it away. As a matter of principle. Do it for your colleagues, your fellow artists, because if we all consistently say no they might, eventually, take the hint. It shouldn’t be professionally or socially acceptable — it isn’t right — for people to tell us, over and over, that our vocation is worthless.

Here, for public use, is my very own template for a response to people who offer to let me write something for them for nothing:

Thanks very much for your compliments on my [writing/illustration/whatever thing you do]. I’m flattered by your invitation to [do whatever it is they want you to do for nothing]. But [thing you do] is work, it takes time, it’s how I make my living, and in this economy I can’t afford to do it for free. I’m sorry to decline, but thanks again, sincerely, for your kind words about my work.

Feel free to amend as necessary. This I’m willing to give away.Slaves of the Internet, Unite! | New York Times (http://www.nytimes.com/2013/10/27/opinion/sunday/slaves-of-the-internet-unite.html)

synthesis
27th October 2013, 23:54
To me this article reflects a sense of bitterness about the proletarianization of the branch of the petite bourgeoisie that used to be called the "intelligentsia."

Popular Front of Judea
28th October 2013, 00:29
To me this article reflects a sense of bitterness about the proletarianization of the branch of the petite bourgeoisie that used to be called the "intelligentsia."

That category would of course include Marx, who sold articles to American newspapers.

argeiphontes
28th October 2013, 00:30
(I don't see how writers are petit-bourgeoisie, unless words are the means of production.)

Craigslist is full of crap like this, people wanting photography and computer work for nothing or next to nothing. They're just trying to take advantage of up and coming people who nevertheless need to make a living. I agree that nobody should ever give away anything for free. Having something for your portfolio is fine, but eventually you need to use a "value pricing" heuristic for how much to charge for your work. If experience and quality is expected, then your work is valuable, otherwise they should learn to expect student and apprentice level work. The people trying to hire you aren't starving artists and can afford to dish out for it, they're just looking for good work for nothing. At least that's been my experience.

edit: They're passing the problems of website advertising (less revenue) down to the people who make the content.

synthesis
28th October 2013, 00:37
Freelancers are petit-bourgeois.

argeiphontes
28th October 2013, 00:50
Ok, why though? edit: because cameras and computers are means of production? Fair enough, never mind.

Popular Front of Judea
28th October 2013, 00:59
Of course if you are giving away your labor that makes you less than proletarian. I will leave it to the reader to come up with categories of people that give their labor away without payment

argeiphontes
28th October 2013, 01:08
Also, some of these "means of production" double as personal property nowadays. ENIAC was means of production, but the laptop I'm typing on really isn't. If somebody uses it as such, that doesn't necessarily mean that the major or defining characteristic isn't just selling your labor power. A writer can write with pencil and paper, but it would be absurd to call those means of production. It's just a technological change, where the writer didn't suddenly become bourgeois. Computers just became prevalent.

edit: Yeah, I take back my post above. Even in the case of the photographer, the primary way s/he makes his/her living is with skill, not by using a camera. A pinhole camera made out of a coffee can can still make art if the person has the skill and ideas to do it.

Lily Briscoe
28th October 2013, 02:05
I actually agree with synthesis' first comment in here. The guy sounds like a bit of a douchebag whiner.


That category would of course include Marx, who sold articles to American newspapers.
Why do people always say stuff like this? "As long as capitalism still exists, there's nothing wrong with being a factory owner; Engels' daddy owned a factory!" Nevermind the fact that Marx seems to have basically been a massive dickhead of a person anyway.

argeiphontes
28th October 2013, 02:11
Why do people always say stuff like this?

Because people are trying to survive and benefit themselves in the world they were born into.

Popular Front of Judea
28th October 2013, 02:16
I actually agree with synthesis' first comment in here. The guy sounds like a bit of a douchebag whiner.


Why do people always say stuff like this? "As long as capitalism still exists, there's nothing wrong with being a factory owner; Engels' daddy owned a factory!" Nevermind the fact that Marx seems to have basically been a massive dickhead of a person anyway.

Such analysis. This is why I log on to Revleft!

synthesis
28th October 2013, 02:22
To be clear, I'm not passing judgment on the author of the article. I only do that to the petite-bourgeoisie when they take up reactionary politics, which they are wont to do - although this guy does sort of sound like he's echoing the "let's-turn-back-the-clock" mentality that brought celebrity musicians into the arena of opposition to internet piracy. I'm just applying a class analysis to the observations of the article, whom I sympathize with to a certain extent, as I narrowly escaped a focus on the field of journalism about ten years ago, even though as a kid I felt like it was something I was "meant to do."

Lily Briscoe
28th October 2013, 03:11
Such analysis. This is why I log on to Revleft!

:) it wasn't intended to be an "analysis", it was my response to reading the piece. I don't do the whole pose of pretending my opinion on every completely inconsequential thing I encounter is some sort of "materialist analysis". IMO, you make an analysis of important political events, of class relations, of social movements. Not of articles written by some jerkoff complaining about how he's such an in-demand journalist so why isn't he rich, and the internet blows because it allows freeloaders to access his glorious insight without feeling obligated to pay him for his opinions. It's a "plight" that I don't feel the slightest tinge of sympathy for, to be honest.

argeiphontes
28th October 2013, 03:23
some jerkoff

Trying to get paid definitely sounded like masturbation based on the article.



rich

money > 0 = rich ?


I only do that to the petite-bourgeoisie when they take up reactionary politics

Bourgeois is as bourgeois does. Based on the social relations, there's little or no difference that I can see. Just like jobs in the want ads that say "must have own tools." That doesn't make auto mechanics or whoever bourgeois.

Popular Front of Judea
28th October 2013, 06:51
:) it wasn't intended to be an "analysis", it was my response to reading the piece. I don't do the whole pose of pretending my opinion on every completely inconsequential thing I encounter is some sort of "materialist analysis". IMO, you make an analysis of important political events, of class relations, of social movements. Not of articles written by some jerkoff complaining about how he's such an in-demand journalist so why isn't he rich, and the internet blows because it allows freeloaders to access his glorious insight without feeling obligated to pay him for his opinions. It's a "plight" that I don't feel the slightest tinge of sympathy for, to be honest.

You would no doubt also tell a weaver in 1811 Nottingham to suck it up and move on. The proletarianization of much of what passes for the American intelligentsia is a major social development. There will an impact on politics that we can only guess. What will happens when it finally sinks in that possession of a college degree is not necessarily a ticket to social mobility? A downwardly mobile middle class is the fuel of reaction. Go ahead enjoy your schadenfreude. Don't be surprised if comes back to bite you in the ass.

Jimmie Higgins
28th October 2013, 11:08
Ok, why though? edit: because cameras and computers are means of production? Fair enough, never mind.Not really because of cameras and computers - and it's also sort of a grey area. A freelancer is like a contracter, they sell their piece of Journalism or writing as compared to someone who works writing copy for a firm who sells their capacity to write and may have conditions and economic relations much closer to a worker.

I think the phenomena of expecting skilled professionals to work for free to build up their resume or get contacts or "exposure" is a real thing and we shouldn't just dismiss it. The important thing though IMO is that freelancers aren't going to get a better deal by themselves because the companies can expect people to work for free if that's the only real option. Increases for workers in related fields (or actually just for workers in general) where similar work is much more prolitarian in character can change this balance so that someone who wants to be an artist or Journalist can easily get a paid job which still affords them time to work on their "passion". If an artist could work some job just to support themselves while also having enough time for their craft, then there would be less pressure to accept these terms.

This situation also acts as a class barrier because it tends to create a situation where people who are already independantly wealthy can persue these kinds of things while other people are too busy just surviving and can't take 5-10 years after college to work for nothing and devote time to develop their artistic or professional skills.

Alonso Quijano
25th November 2013, 22:10
Doesn't this sit exactly right with Marx's theory of society dividing into two classes?

The capitalists aim for capital, the proletarians for rent and food. How is journalism petit bourgeois?

Alonso Quijano
25th November 2013, 22:43
Also, some of these "means of production" double as personal property nowadays. ENIAC was means of production, but the laptop I'm typing on really isn't. If somebody uses it as such, that doesn't necessarily mean that the major or defining characteristic isn't just selling your labor power. A writer can write with pencil and paper, but it would be absurd to call those means of production. It's just a technological change, where the writer didn't suddenly become bourgeois. Computers just became prevalent.

edit: Yeah, I take back my post above. Even in the case of the photographer, the primary way s/he makes his/her living is with skill, not by using a camera. A pinhole camera made out of a coffee can can still make art if the person has the skill and ideas to do it.
They own the means of production as much as a paperboy who uses his own bike.

Journalists don't own the print, or the cable station, or wherever their articles are posted. And let's say they do write an independent blog - they still do that for a living. That web domain is theirs as long as they pay for it.

And a photographer with an expensive camera - what about those who take loans and use credit card payment? Do they actually use a capital to buy it?

People today don't even own their own homes!


To me this article reflects a sense of bitterness about the proletarianization of the branch of the petite bourgeoisie that used to be called the "intelligentsia."
And why is that a bad thing? Where and when did people celebrate their proletarisation, and who the hell said it's a good thing accept for Marx itself, for it speeds up the revolutionary process?

So people are waking up to see that they're either rich or poor. That the capitalist system gives a shit about their individual value. That's great! That's an important part of the revolution. Acknowledging you're being exploited. Asking if you're such an imporant part of society unlike "the working class", you still have to pay excessive rent, and have no money.

Only then can realisation that we're all one class can come. Rejecting people out of the "proletarian circle" is reactionary. It's one of the best strategies capitalists use. "You're not working class, you're middle class!" Bullshit. We're all working class. The more we buy into their shit, the more workers seclude other workers, the slower the revolution will come.

When you read Marx talking about two classes forming, did you expect the people who were downgraded to celebrate? Or did you envision them siding with the capitalists, and support that?

Alonso Quijano
25th November 2013, 23:12
I actually agree with synthesis' first comment in here. The guy sounds like a bit of a douchebag whiner.


Why do people always say stuff like this? "As long as capitalism still exists, there's nothing wrong with being a factory owner; Engels' daddy owned a factory!" Nevermind the fact that Marx seems to have basically been a massive dickhead of a person anyway.
Excuse me, but this comment shows no understanding of history, of the society of those times, and of Marx himself.

Marx was living in poverty at least some part of his life. He dedicated his life to research and to help organise a movement. Without Marx's (and his wife, who came out of an aristocratic family) dedication, do you think the world would be better today? I understand you don't think he should have become a professor - so what, according to you, he should have done? Join a factory? Become a beggar? A priest? A rabbi like his ancestors?

Which path should he have chosen, as a socialist, as opposed to living off of scraps donated by Engels and spreading class awareness?

When did Engels defend factory owners? He took money from exploiters and donated it to fight exploitation. He was disgusted with factories and helped show the ugly truth about them.

I don't say any criticism against Marx or Engels deserves restriction or anything, but for crying out loud, this is ridiculous.

Criticising Engels who showed the world what factories are like, against the financial interests and his family, and Marx, who wrote to whatever paper would publish and spoke to everyone who was listen - and supposing they lead reactionary life - this is what you'd expect in the OI forums.

What is your idea of revolution? Not selling articles to newspapers? So might as well not selling your labour power to corporations who exploit people? Not using the money you inherited because it's "tainted", instead of using it to fight what tainted it in the first place?

Sitting quiet and shutting up, that's the revolution? Criticising writers who complain about bad terms is one thing, but criticising Marx and Engels is... Call me a fanboy, I'm just quiet surprised at this slandering, by someone who identifies as a comrade. If it was backed up by some theory or essay, fine. That's opinion. But it's a bit weird for me that a revolutionary mostly-Marxist (if not all-Marxist) forum has messages about how Marx was living a petit bourgeois life and a shitty person (on what do you base that account on) and that Engels supported owning factories. That's not discussion, that's slandering. I'm not against freedom of speech or anything. I'm not saying he should be restricted, I am saying that the community should expect such ridiculous comments to at least be defended in an argument.

blake 3:17
2nd December 2013, 23:28
I was asked to lecture at a university this fall for free and it'd have cost me a $150+ in travel expenses. The free part wasn't spelled out for several weeks...

An old comrade, in both senses, was asked to contribute an illustration to a magazine for a third his standard price "for exposure". He told them to fuck off. That's basic solidarity and opposition to the race to economic bottom.

I wouldn't have minded the university talk if I'd had the money -- I'd have a chance to visit friends and see some art and there may have been some political stuff to check out. But I didn't, so didn't go. But it's fucked when a friggin law class can't fork over a bus fare and per diem for a guest speaker. I am speaking at a local college where the bus fare should be covered ($6) and I've been promised lunch but I have to give two talks and a Power Point. Hahaha --

blake 3:17
2nd December 2013, 23:37
Wasn't quite sure how to quote this -- very very interesting piece by a young comics artist who publishes, self publishes, publishes on social media, and has been pirated by folks monetizing online.

http://www.mixtapecomics.com/?p=1239

The original (unaltered, credited/sourced) version of the comic has been viewed 81,595 times.

The edited, uncredited/unsourced version of the comic has been viewed 588,310 times. (That’s over half a million views. Seven times more than the original, credited version.)

What does that mean for me as a creator? On the positive side, I created something that people found relatable and enjoyable. I succeeded at that thing I try to do. But, given the lack of credit, it also means that 88% of 669,905 people that read this comic had no chance of finding their way back to my website.

This was a successful comic. I want to be able to call this exposure a success. But those numbers are heartbreaking.

Morally, just the idea of taking someone’s work and removing the URL and copyright info to repost it is reprehensible. You are cutting the creator out of the creation. But worse yet, sites like 9GAG are profiting off the uncredited images that they’re posting.

9GAG is currently ranked #299 in the world according to Alexa rankings. As of April of this year, their estimated net worth was around $9.8 million, generating nearly $13,415 every day in ad revenue.

As a creator of content that they use on their site: I see none of that. And I have no chance of seeing any kind of revenue since readers can’t find their way back to my site from an uncredited image.

I don’t want to sound bitter. The money isn’t the point. But this is a thing that’s happening. This isn’t just happening to me. It’s actively happening to the greater art community as a whole. (Especially the comics community. Recent artists effected by altered artwork/theft off the top of my head: Liz Prince, Luke Healy, Nation of Amanda, Melanie Gillman, etc.) Our work is being stolen and profited off of. Right this second.

I do my best to see the positive in these events but the very least I can do as a creator is stand up in this small moment and say “This is mine. I made this.”