Mental and Creative Property

[novemba]

I was thinking about the whole 'arts under communism' think when I began to wonder that in a society that demolishes all private property, what would happen to our thoughts and ideas, cause in a sense they are private property...

I meant to put this in learning...sorry.

[bunk]

Once you invent something it's common property. There would be nothing that you could earn extra from it really, the only issue is recognition which you'd almost definetely get unless you were in hiding while creating you invention/ writing.

[LSD]

cause in a sense they are private property...

The only "sense" in which they are private property, is in the sense that capitalism just made it up about 150 years ago.

There is no logical basis to anyone "owning" an idea.

[Gust]

Originally posted by Lysergic Acid [email protected] 12 2005, 05:17 PM

cause in a sense they are private property...

The only "sense" in which they are private property, is in the sense that capitalism just made it up about 150 years ago.

There is no logical basis to anyone "owning" an idea.
I agree, ideas should be shared for the benefit of the common man. New ideas should benefit everyone.

[Forward Union]

Having said that, personal property remains.

[Clarksist]

Many people hear "abolition of private property" and think its the end of possessions. But what it means by private property, is property which could help us all which is collected in one person's hands.

Take America. We have many homeless people, but we also have many rich people with a ridiculous amount of land, most of which they don't use AT ALL. That is the private property which homeless people could build houses on, but not under capitalism.

[encephalon]

for one, you didn't "invent" anything. You are the product of the culture and epoch that bears you.. your work is the sum of all previous works you have read and all environmental influences that you've had. So saying it's "yours" to own is a bit of a stretch.. 99% of absolutely everything comes entirely from something else.

Aside from that, nobody is trying to get rid of someone getting credit for an idea or creation. You shouldn't, however, have complete domain over something because you added your 2 cents.

[Entrails Konfetti]

Fucking great! I could finally put my paintings up in a gallery somewhere,where everyone can enjoy....... or hate !

Though I would like to walk past people staring at my work and say " Oh,Tom is a fucking genious,if I only I could come with ideas like him ".

Most likely it will be ,"What a trite piece of shit...ever since art-work has become state-property there has been alot of shit !"

[encephalon]

art-work would not be state property. It wouldn't be property at all.

[Entrails Konfetti]

It would be if you wished to sell it. I don't understand how you would market it under socialism/Communism .

Thanks you just wrecked my dream.... :(

[encephalon]

under socialism, your activity as an artist may have to be supported by the state, but that does not mean everything you produce is state property. In fact, I would be against a socialist government discriminating art at all, allowing it to proliferate freely without fear of losing you means of survival.

For instance, the artist could be supported with a salary (provided money is still used in the hypothetical socialist economy), his art could proliferate, and no buying or selling would occur of it. If someone wished to place it somewhere, they'd be able to do so without buying or selling it. A kind of universal gallery, browsable by the web, could be maintained by the government (in fact, it would be a valuable source of work). It could include every work by the artists, and if someone sees something they like they can have it delivered to them. No charge. No buying or selling. Just Art.

[Entrails Konfetti]

As an "artist",I'd feel guilty about accepting a salary,I'd rather work where work in needed,and keep my creating as a hobby. I don't think it would be beneficial to society be paid a salary,for example I get a creative-block sometimes.What good would it do to pay me when I don't produce anything ?

I would never wish to sell a piece of my art-work in the first place,unless ofcourse I have no other means of survivial which,could happen to me in such a country as America.

[encephalon]

As an "artist",I'd feel guilty about accepting a salary,I'd rather work where work in needed,and keep my creating as a hobby. I don't think it would be beneficial to society be paid a salary,for example I get a creative-block sometimes.What good would it do to pay me when I don't produce anything ?

I would never wish to sell a piece of my art-work in the first place,unless ofcourse I have no other means of survivial which,could happen to me in such a country as America.

I'm a writer, so I know what oyu mean by creative-block. I get it more often than not.

Socialism means regardless of whether you produce or not, you are taken care of. Under such conditions, you are free to pursue your area of productivity as you please. You wouldn't be stuck as an artist, nor would you be stuck as a laborer. If you want to do both, then do both. Do what you want.

Isn't that one of the main points of getting rid of capitalism?