 |
| No, no, no. The OTHER Marx |
So a few other students in class posted blogs about Locke and Piracy several weeks back. While those blogs were well written and engaged Locke accurately, I have lost my patience for Locke. I mean, come on. Who doesn't think Marx is the best political philosopher in modern history?!? If you disagree with me, ask yourself how you listen to music.
So it shouldn't be that hard to convince anyone that music sales have been effected by piracy. Ever since the internet boom in the 90s, Music-Album sales have been on a steady decline. As you can see in the picture below, the total number of sales in the United States has done nothing but go down between the years 2000 and 2009, though slowly making a comeback.
 |
| This is also a graph of my total productivity this semester |
So piracy is this illegal, terrible thing right? I mean, this money could be used for other things, like advancing further music capabilities, scouting for new on the rise artists, or hiring a new songwriter for Taylor Swift. Well, as much as I hate Taylor Swift, the capitalistic music society has become a breeding ground for overproduction at the hands of record labels. Over a third of people admit they pirate music in the United States according to a study in 2009. This is where Marx comes in.
 |
| A common logo for piracy |
Marx believed the biggest atrocity was overproduction and the only way to avoid such an epidemic is to rid ourselves of the bourgeoisie (Record Labels) through revolution by the proletariat. In terms of piracy, there are two forms of proletariat: the pirates and the artists. Many artists are reforming, moving away from record labels and going to Indie labels, or selling CD's on their own. Originally, the capital ownership of the music was in the hands of the record labels, giving small amounts to artists while taking a vast majority of the profits. Now, the artists are reforming and taking the wealth and capital for themselves. Artists also make money by touring instead of focusing on albums and CD's. The pirates are a different type of proletariat, something Marx would have called the lumpenproletariat or the "dangerous class". These people are the scum of society, as many people view pirates. They have no capital whatsoever and get by in any way they can. The idea behind piracy is that music is everyone's property and we all hold a common ownership of that capital. Music is owned by the community, no longer by the bourgeoisie record labels, who "fortify their already acquired status by subjecting society at large to their conditions of appropriation." By forcing artists to bend to their will and play songs that the record label deems appropriate, artists are forced to work how the record label sees fit. And the members of society are forced to listen to the disgusting, unoriginal Taylor Swift and Nickelback songs that are just the same song reworded as many times as possible. The next time you go to your preferred torrenting site, make sure you stop and think "what would Marx do?"
Then pirate as much as possible.
I like this. I for one, can honestly say that I don't pirate music. This may be a shocker, but, even a U of M student in 2012 has made it this far without ever learning how to torrent. I buy albums when I can, and other than that, I go to youtube and play songs there. This was a very good description of how Marx would view the music industry today. I agree that the record labels can be very bad for artists. However, the labels are a brand name, a name that pirates, or anyone else recognizes. Because of this brand name on an artist's music, it is circulated, and distributed in such a way that would be very hard for an artist to do on their own. Of course, once an artist is known, there should be no reason to need a label anymore, because they have their own name and fame. I would argue that without the record labels, artists would struggle to get their music out to the public, and many would fail, (many do anyways). Should the artists get more money than they do from the labels? OF COURSE! The label didn't do anything but distribute, most artists pick their own recording specialists and producers. But, before one thinks that the labels are completely evil, they must look at what they do for the artist. Just wanted to play a little devil's advocate and give an opposing viewpoint. Good post! Funny, yet puts across the message very well!
ReplyDeleteI personally would NEVER pirate music from any file sharing site, and furthermore find it hard to wrap my mind around your claims that Karl Marx's would endorse this behavior. Just kidding. I totally do it, and totally see it.
ReplyDeleteOn a more serious note, I kind of just write off what I am doing as wrong, and dont think about it. Its interesting to read about a political theorist that I have much respect for who actually would endorse the behavior I am engaging in. It was a stretch for me, but the more I think about it, the more I can see it. Your post excellently laid out the correlation between Marx's opinions and the 21st century music industry. While I have never considered myself to align with the views of Marx, I kind of like his "stick it to the man" mentality! Excellent post!
Pirating is certainly not morally clean; it’s up to the pirater to decide if it’s worth the (possible) toll on his or her conscience to go through with it. Aside from this, I’m having trouble with your assertion that music as a communal belonging breeds quality. Are you arguing that our supposed common ownership of music is what makes music interesting? What incentive would a musician have to make particularly interesting OR uninteresting music to a market that he or she cannot make money off of? Also the “conditions of appropriation” that corporations work off of are theoretically based on popular demand in the first place. I agree with you wholeheartedly; corporate pop music like Taylor Swift and Nickelback is something I find revolting on an aesthetic as well as broad social level, and it’s clear that profit-driven music has marked a huge deterioration in the quality of the music industry. That said, I find it hard to spin this into an argument for piracy justification.
ReplyDeleteAnthony, I think you highlight another aspect of the music industry to solidify my argument that piracy would be condoned by Marx. You say artists would have a hard time making a name for themselves, new bands would be hard to find, and we would all suffer. Well, Marx would totally agree. He doesn't find productivity wrong; he is a big fan of it. He would probably like the fact that the bourgeoisie help make "progress" in the music industry, but he doesn't like the overproduction and the labels taking advantage of the proletariat. While piracy and communal music ownership may hurt the music industry as a whole, didn't communism? No artist's labor is more valuable than another in the words of Karl Marx.
ReplyDeleteLex, revolution is not always morally clean. Just look at the Russian Civil war and the Bolshevik Revolution. Were they "morally clean?" I don't think so, and I agree neither is piracy. I am not trying to "justify" piracy any more than I'm trying to justify Communism, I'm only relating Marx and the Music Industry at this point in time. Plus, while ownership of the music may be communal at that point, artists still have the ability to tour which is usually their best way to earn income anyways. Overall, again, I'm not condoning piracy or communism myself, I'm just pointing out that Marx would condone it. By all means, there are few examples of successful Marxism and Communism in our world, so how much can we trust the guy?
Ryan-
DeleteI take the concept of moral cleanliness from a utilitarian perspective. If a revolution comes about through violent means but results in a peaceful government for a longer period of time, then it was an overall act of good despite the dirty hands, and thus a morally clean course of action. Pirating is not comparable in this manner because there is no end result that justifies such an action.
Less Utilitarianistic and more Walzer, but I guess it pretty much means the same thing in the end. I think your missing the benefits that the pirates are getting. At the price of 1 dollar per song (itunes) it would take about $30,000 for a person to fill his ipod. Now, most people don't have 30,000 songs, but the point I'm making is the money people save by pirating. This money can be used for more necessary items like food and such instead of leisurely items. I myself have saved thousands of dollars through pirating and am proudly using the money I saved to help put me through college. I would say my education is a benefit provided by pirating.
DeleteRyan, I thoroughly enjoyed this post and how you related Marxism to the music industry. It was amusing throughout and informative. Your use of analogies was also greatly entertaining. The only issue I have with it, though, is that people tend not to be able to do everything. So the artist may be able to produce music, but that label is the medium by which the artists can efficiently sell that music. While it would be nice to get rid of the label, the artists doing things on their own seems inefficient. Marx would most likely consider having the artists take over the label rather than replace it entirely. In such a way, the artists -- and I guess some pirates -- would be working to benefit the community. And the thing with piracy is that people usually pirate to sample. I know I do sometimes. If I want a CD, I will pirate it and then buy it physically or digitally if it really is worth having. The end result of piracy everywhere, though, seems like anarchy.
ReplyDelete