RNK
6th June 2006, 06:59
This arose from an interesting and in-depth conversation with a socialist friend of mine from the UK. The conversation began about Trotsky's ideology of the proletarian revolution superceding and replacing the bourgeoisie revoltion and evolved to concern the industrial revolution, its essential "creation" of the proleteriat and the causes of that creation. It led inevitably to the question of patent laws, which interestingly enough I have not seen mentioned in relation to the proletarian revolution.
A brief history of the patent (according to wikipedia):
The first patent law was a Venetian Statute of 1474 in which the Republic of Venice issued a decree by which new and inventive devices, once they had been put into practice, had to be communicated to the Republic in order to obtain legal protection against potential infringers. England followed with the Statute of Monopolies in 1623 under King James I. Prior to this time, the crown would issue letters patent (meaning "open letter", as opposed to a letter under seal) providing any person with a "monopoly" to produce particular goods or provide particular services. The first of them was granted by Henry VI in 1449 to a Flemish man a 20 year monopoly on the manufacture of stained glass.
This act, or series of acts, I believe, essentially gave birth to both the bourgeoisie and the proletariat. In one foul swoop, the aristocracy and monarchies of old passed the means of production onto the bourgeoisie, as a measure of aristocratical dominion of the means of production by proxy. The aristocracy essentially attempted to secure a stranglehold on an otherwise anarchaic industrial system via permitting only certain individuals and groups the authority to produce things. In a way it was the beginning of the end of aristocracy, which was replaced by modern parliamentarism which itself has become intertwined with the bourgeoisie.
This was the start of a long tradition by the English Crown of the granting of "letters patent" to favoured persons (or people who were prepared to pay for them). This became increasingly open to abuse as the Crown granted patents in respect of all sorts of known goods (salt, for example). This power, which was to raise money for the crown, was widely abused, and court began to limit the circumstances in which they could be granted. After public outcry, James I was forced to revoke all existing monopolies and declare that they were only to be used for "projects of new invention". This was incorporated into the Statute of Monopolies in which Parliament restricted the crown's power explicitly so that the King could only issue letters patents to the inventors or introducers of original inventions for a fixed number of years.
And here, I believe, we see the foundations of modern proletarian revolution. Although not ultimate, it was a victory for the average worker, and temporarily stunted the ability of the bourgeoisie to own the means of producing and aquiring everything.
This ordeal, which was part of the "industrial revolution" (aka the bourgeoisie revolution) was almost completely reliant upon patent laws, and still today the bourgeoisie are reliant upon patents.
So would not the abolishment of patent laws also abolish the monopoly of the bourgeoisie on production? It would essentially, in a heartbeat, make all tools and processess of production the equal property of the masses, open to anyone and everyone to use; no longer would international corporations have sole rights to produce (and gorge themselves upon the profit of) millions of products throughout the world.
Does anyone else agree?
A brief history of the patent (according to wikipedia):
The first patent law was a Venetian Statute of 1474 in which the Republic of Venice issued a decree by which new and inventive devices, once they had been put into practice, had to be communicated to the Republic in order to obtain legal protection against potential infringers. England followed with the Statute of Monopolies in 1623 under King James I. Prior to this time, the crown would issue letters patent (meaning "open letter", as opposed to a letter under seal) providing any person with a "monopoly" to produce particular goods or provide particular services. The first of them was granted by Henry VI in 1449 to a Flemish man a 20 year monopoly on the manufacture of stained glass.
This act, or series of acts, I believe, essentially gave birth to both the bourgeoisie and the proletariat. In one foul swoop, the aristocracy and monarchies of old passed the means of production onto the bourgeoisie, as a measure of aristocratical dominion of the means of production by proxy. The aristocracy essentially attempted to secure a stranglehold on an otherwise anarchaic industrial system via permitting only certain individuals and groups the authority to produce things. In a way it was the beginning of the end of aristocracy, which was replaced by modern parliamentarism which itself has become intertwined with the bourgeoisie.
This was the start of a long tradition by the English Crown of the granting of "letters patent" to favoured persons (or people who were prepared to pay for them). This became increasingly open to abuse as the Crown granted patents in respect of all sorts of known goods (salt, for example). This power, which was to raise money for the crown, was widely abused, and court began to limit the circumstances in which they could be granted. After public outcry, James I was forced to revoke all existing monopolies and declare that they were only to be used for "projects of new invention". This was incorporated into the Statute of Monopolies in which Parliament restricted the crown's power explicitly so that the King could only issue letters patents to the inventors or introducers of original inventions for a fixed number of years.
And here, I believe, we see the foundations of modern proletarian revolution. Although not ultimate, it was a victory for the average worker, and temporarily stunted the ability of the bourgeoisie to own the means of producing and aquiring everything.
This ordeal, which was part of the "industrial revolution" (aka the bourgeoisie revolution) was almost completely reliant upon patent laws, and still today the bourgeoisie are reliant upon patents.
So would not the abolishment of patent laws also abolish the monopoly of the bourgeoisie on production? It would essentially, in a heartbeat, make all tools and processess of production the equal property of the masses, open to anyone and everyone to use; no longer would international corporations have sole rights to produce (and gorge themselves upon the profit of) millions of products throughout the world.
Does anyone else agree?