zedcell

Sure seems like the bosses and the state are in cahoots to make sure ANY criminality (regardless of it's dubious class nature) is punishable by destitution. We should really work on trying to fix that.

I think he helped give a lot of solid ideas that the system itself could be reformed and reforged

Bro didn't read the book

PB artist who makes residual money off of his work is afraid that AI undermines copyright, I.e. his ability to rent seek on his past labour. Not really that sympathetic tbh.

I should clarify as well, that last sentence is still slightly wrong. If a firm has a first mover advantage in using new technology they can effectively earn excess surplus value off of the difference in productivity between their variable capital and other firms in their branch of production. This doesn't mean that the technology itself is producing surplus value, just that it made the labour employed more productive relative to its competitors.

Any machinery including AI is constant capital. Labour is the only thing that can produce surplus value because you can pay a worker enough to keep them alive but their labour produces much more value than it costs. Constant capital is valued based on the crystallised labour held in it, and cannot produce surplus value when all branches of production that can use it are using it.

It's Marx's logic actually.

You fundamentally misunderstand. If a wage worker is paid the exchange value of labour-power I.e the cost to reproduce themselves, at the behest of a capitalist (the work could be in the service sector, like a chef, an artist; it could also be a plumber, and they could ultimately be doing work for consumers like other workers), they produce more value than they are paid for I.e. they produce surplus value.

A self-employed plumber or a live-in chef working directly for someone with no capitalist middleman, or an artist working for commissions do not produce surplus value. They sell the final product of their labour, not their labour itself, and they charge the going market rate for the product of their labour, not the going market rate for their labour-power by the hour.

An artist can be proletarian or petit-bourgeois. A chef can also be either, as can a plumber.

Your time would be better spent reading and studying Capital than professing your shoddy home-baked anti-capitalism online.

Art produced for a wage, for a capitalist, is productive labour. Art produced by an individual sold as commissions is not productive, I.e it produces no surplus value, the artist is paid the full value of their labour by the commissioner.

The artist hired by a capitalist already doesn't own the outputs of their labour, and never has. Quit moralising and go and read a book.

I think the division of labour and the distinction of artist should die and that involves a socialism that involves everyone including what passes for artists these days doing work outside of art as required of them. So that everyone can do art instead of having a privileged few (relative to the global majority) that can while away their time making fan art commisions and shit YouTube videos.

Newsflash you PB jackass, workers haven't owned the fruits of their labour the entire time. I do creative work as a wage labourer and I don't own shit of the output I produce. Artists can suck a fat one if they think they can get out of being proletarianised like all the rest of us.

Petit Bourgeois sentimentality bullshit.

Copyright should be destroyed, end of.

You need a 100% inheritance tax to maintain this though, because otherwise the kids begin to accrue capital in the form of their parents' house on their death.

This Labour government is almost ideologically identical to the Tory gov. They have imbibed neoliberal norms and we all have to pretend like it's a perfectly sane way to run the state.