Now, some people might object, so I will address objections some may have
- "Collectivization destroys individuality!"
This completely misconstrues what collectivization of art is. Collectivization of art does not mean that all art will look the same/have the same message/etc. Collectivization of art does mean that the people as a collective have the right to use, redistribute, and derive art made by the people.
- "But isn't this stealing?"
Let me ask you something. If I had a "make a bicycle" button that magically creates a bicycle out of thin air, then would it be "stealing" for you to press the "make a bicycle" button and keep the bicycle for yourself? Stealing something involves an intent to deprive someone of something, and what are you depriving me of? Bicycles? It is utterly absurd to say that I am being deprived of bicycles when I can just press the "make a bicycle" button and have as many bicycles as I wish. But, say that I create a "make a bicycle" button and then Mike decides to tell everyone that only he can press the "make a bicycle" button. This action now deprives the people of bicycles, and is thus much closer to stealing than you pressing the "make a bicycle" button.
- "But how will you earn money?"
Do you really think the optimal way to earn money off of the art to produce is to sell it off piecemeal by creating artificial scarcity? A collectivized system of art would require a vastly different system of compensation compared to the current privatized art that exists today. The system of payment for collectivized art requires socialist planning. When an artist publishes a work of art, they will be given a government grant equivalent to the amount of labor that was put in in exchange for the art being able to be used and derived by the public. This is a much more equitable and fair system of production and distribution of art.
- "But what if someone takes credit for your art?"
Collectivization of art does not mean removing credit from the original author. Redistributing art in a collectivized system would still require the redistributor to credit the original creator. The person's art will still be protected by a trademark, not a copyright. This means that the art will always be linked to the original creator, and the original creator will still be able to take action against people who fail to credit them/intentionally take unauthorized credit.
- "But what about freedom? Should I not have the freedom to choose who can distribute my art?"
This idea, although it may seem like human nature to liberals, has only arisen when publishers, the real thieves of art, have created strict copyright laws to protect themselves, not the creators. Before the age of publishers, these ideas did not exist, as there was no material justification for these ideas to arise. Just as these ideas have arrived with privatized art, they will also leave with privatized art. This argument falls in the same category as the "communism goes against human nature" category, as they both use the justifications the current system creates for itself as "evidence" against alternative, and superior, systems.
If you have any counterpoints, please comment them below! ^^
These numbers are publicly accessible, IDEK why you are barging in here, just to call us tankies, provide no basis for your argument, and then just leave