Capitalism vs Communism and P2P

Post Reply New Topic

Communism and socialism won't work because there is no emphasis on more production. Capitalism has a hiearchichal structure but, at least people are rewarded for higher effort. The only thing I don't like is when people are rich for doing absolutely nothing at the expense of the underpoverished (Sweat shops). That is steeling from the poor and giving to the rich.

Never assume that only one class of people are being affected by a bad ecomony or bad organization. Alot of good people are being opressed upon from the Bush regime including fairly higher up. The investers who used to be rich are now getting kicked out of the decision making process in most companies.

The worst case scenarios are the companies that depend on those US investors. The companies will go from multi-million dollar organizations to bankrupt. That is alot of working class people who are going into the streets.

It is not to say that Marx's communist manifesto did nothing but harm. Unions and workers rights have come out of the darkest areas of the Industrial Revolution. The standard of living has gone up and health and education reborn into all the nations that were capitalist?
So all the nations that had the most liberty and freedom are capitalist.

The only socialist like group that works is P2P networks.
They are like heavenly freedom.
Now hollywood is just as interested in trying to get rid of the "virus" with the RIAA.
That is something to scream about.
If any type of revolution is going to take place, it will take place in the internet. As Marx has said in the past, technology will destroy Capitalism. Unless the RIAA stop with trying to sue every single user, they will have humongous problems on their hands . I don't think the prisons in US can hold 30 million users who download
"Hey Jude" because it is copywrited under the ownership of Michael Jackson.
If the big media organizations attempt to push and push, people will push back. What do any of you propose others to do over this infringement on our basic rights?

Don't start saying that downloading music is stealing. You might as well say that covers are plagerism.

Going against the RIAA and Hollywood for doing this is not acting against Capitalism. It is stepping up and shouting to everyone that the legislation being passed in US infringes on our new forms of liberty.

Music is the language of the world people; and that language is becoming outlawed.

feel better after all that

That makes a lot of sense Mith... thanks...

I like capitalism... although I don't agree with it's excesses like Sweatshops and Paris Hilton...

I wrote a big paper on P2P for high school a few years ago. I don't have it any more but I remember the gist of it. Basically, after doing way too much research, I concluded that P2P networks are the best thing that could possibly happen to music. It provides the best music to the most amount of people the easiest, with no middlemen in the form of distributors. If a band wants to get their music out, all they have to do is record it and release it on the internet, and if it's good enough it will become popular. Up until now, this was not possible. In short, this takes the control out of the executives' hands and puts it in the hands of the people. P2P will make music into survival of the best, instead of survival of whatever the focus groups say will sell.

As for the debate on whether P2P replaces CD sales, the RIAA is lying. A collection of MP3s is no substitute for the quality of a CD. Bands know this, and unlike their distributors, they're not afraid of losing sales.

I agree. The number of great bands I have heard online, downloaded and then GONE OUT AND BOUGHT is in double figures. I love P2P - I have very little money, and don't see why that means I shouldn't be able to listen to more music. I buy what I can, as I always have, but I now get to listen to so much more - so I buy the best stuff, and delete half of what I download anyway. Also a lot of what is available via P2P (particularly using the eD2K network) is back catalogue and/or scarce and poorly distributed through regular channels. The RIAA are scaremongering nazis.

Dunc

I think the RIAA has nothing to do with money or "ensuring" quality music. . .

sort of like when Mirth said

is not entirely accurate yet sums up what I think is the real sticking point with p2p. If P2P continues to suceed, the ablity to create international icons of culture will no longer be in the hands of the record companies, and by extension their investors.

The power of icons are losing their luster in this day and age, only because they no longer resonate in the same way they might have used to. P2P will destroy whatever little iconism they have left in them.

I believe that P2P is a sort of Samizat (russian for copied illegal books) that is a means of distribution.

Distribution is more crictical than the actual creation of thought-provoking work; without distribution there is no awareness of it. Tolkien agreed to have his Ring cycle seperated into three parts even when he wanted an unified whole just so it could be printed.

I personally use P2p as a preview of music
So I hear of an artist (Like rammstien) which i think "Mhh. Sounds good, Lets have a listen" Download a song, listen, and if i like, go out and buy

Incidentally, Rammstein rock.

Agreed.

Feuer Frei!

Dun, you got MSN and flash player? Add me at [email protected] *Remove the .Nospam* and ill send you a funny flash animation a freind of mine sent me.

Communism can work and still have rewards for hier effort, just remove the hirarcial structure from capitalism. The definition of communism can be summed up in a few words - "power to the peeple". Nowere in those 4 words does it say there isnt a reward for more effort. Just with capitalism sum peeple are more in a position to create there own rewards and to take that away from others becos they have the power to do so. Communism spreds the power equally, therefore that situation no longer exists.