6 ms·

I think that something inherent but generally unacknowledged about the oxymoron that is "Creative Industry", is how Capitalism robs creativity of any and all in

by skidoo 12y ago

I think that something inherent but generally unacknowledged about the oxymoron that is "Creative Industry", is how Capitalism robs creativity of any and all integrity. Exploring ideas for the sake of creation, for any reason beyond money-fetishizing, is a wonderful and incomparable thing.

sfeng 12y ago
You might disagree with me, but I see business as a craft.
- skidoo 12y ago
  A blacksmith could craftily forge strong chains for the slave-owner, but the potential for his skills would never be met in the doing.
  - jeremysmyth 12y ago
    ...yet the same blacksmith could turn a sword into a plowshare and make society a better place. Straw-man arguments might have their place but they are still straw-man arguments. Not every businessman starts out being mercenary, and not every practicing tradesman cares naught for his art.
    - deleted 12y ago
      [deleted]
- yourad_io 12y ago
  craft krɑːft/ noun 1. an activity involving skill in making things by hand. "the craft of cobbling" 2. skill used in deceiving others. "her cousin was not her equal in guile and evasive craft" You're both right.
  - ashark 12y ago
    Oh, great, there's another term I'll never be able to take as it's intended when used in a business context. Like "hustle".
dkopi 12y ago
I think that something inherent but generally unacknowledged is how Socialism and Anti capitalist ideologies rob creativity of any and all usefulness. Exploring ideas for the sake of solving real world problems, making people's lives better, is a wonderful and incomparable thing.
- skidoo 12y ago
  Do that without expecting financial reward, and your soapbox would hold some meaning. "Usefulness" is not synonymous for monetization. Making the world better is not synonymous for making a few people that much richer.
  - dkopi 12y ago
    That's not how Human nature works. The world is filled with failed experiments of "Just do good without expecting anything in return". "From each according to his ability, to each according to his need" has failed utterly, at every scale. Be it the soviet union, or small bankrupt "kibbutzim" in Israel. Capitalism is much more than "expecting a financial reward". It's a complex system of signals which let producers determine what is the most valuable and efficient use for their resources. What Should I build in my basement? A sous vide cooker? A drone with a camera? A computer game or a new social network? Capitalism and profit give the correct signals - what is it that the market demands. What do people truly feel they need?
    - jeremysmyth 12y ago
      Agree with everything you say, but would like to comment on this: Capitalism and profit give the correct signals - what is it that the market demands. What do people truly feel they need? Art is the big gap here. Few could argue successfully that the world is not a better place for the creations of JS Bach, Kafka, Keats, Van Gogh, yet these people did not make their fortune from their life's passion and work. Only after their death were they appreciated for what they did in their figurative basements. Capitalism provides one set of signals, an overpoweringly large one at that, but it does not provide a complete picture of value to humanity.
austerity 12y ago
Imperfect as it is, money is the best available measurement of usefulness of a product or service to other people. There's nothing wrong with doing useless things for the hell of it, but attempting to put it on a morally high ground is ridiculous.
- yourad_io 12y ago
  > attempting to put it on a morally high ground is ridiculous Is it? In my view, organizations are almost living entities in and of themselves. They can become more ruthless than any individual because of their critical mass and "mission". Maybe I'm oversimplifying, but we have org A ("business"), primarily self-interested, and org B ("non-profit"), which isn't. Sure, there's potential for evil and corruption everywhere, but that doesn't make their two starting points one and the same. Aren't organizations built for maximizing profits inherently on a lower moral ground than non-profit organizations? edit: removed non-existent "[1]"
  - austerity 12y ago
    > Aren't organizations built for maximizing profits inherently on a lower moral ground than non-profit organizations[1]? No, certainly not inherently. Even if we define moral ground as the degree of altruism of motives (which is way too narrow in my opinion), non-profits do not inherently pursue altruistic goals, but rather non-monetizable goals. But if we define it as something that the society should encourage because it's beneficial to the society then for-profits are arguably on a higher ground since they are demonstrably beneficial to people who are willingly giving them money while all some non-profits can show in their defense is abstract ideas. KKK is a non-profit.
    - mikegioia 12y ago
      But if we define it as something that the society should encourage because it's beneficial to the society then for-profits are arguably on a higher ground ... KKK is a non-profit. And Comcast is a company. Just because people give money to an organization and extract value from it doesn't mean society should encourage that company's behavior. Your argument makes no sense. You're saying: 1. Moral ground is "something society encourages because it's beneficial to society" 2. People give for-profit companies their money 3. Therefore, companies have a higher moral ground since companies are "demonstrably beneficial to people" How on earth do you arrive at that conclusion? You then throw an example of a bad non-profit (KKK) as I can equally give you an example of a bad company (Comcast) that takes people's money, provides a necessary service to their customers, but is by all accounts one of the worst, most parasitic organizations on the planet.

by skidoo 12y ago

sfeng 12y ago

You might disagree with me, but I see business as a craft.

skidoo 12y ago
A blacksmith could craftily forge strong chains for the slave-owner, but the potential for his skills would never be met in the doing.
- jeremysmyth 12y ago
  ...yet the same blacksmith could turn a sword into a plowshare and make society a better place. Straw-man arguments might have their place but they are still straw-man arguments. Not every businessman starts out being mercenary, and not every practicing tradesman cares naught for his art.
  - deleted 12y ago
    [deleted]
yourad_io 12y ago
craft krɑːft/ noun 1. an activity involving skill in making things by hand. "the craft of cobbling" 2. skill used in deceiving others. "her cousin was not her equal in guile and evasive craft" You're both right.
- ashark 12y ago
  Oh, great, there's another term I'll never be able to take as it's intended when used in a business context. Like "hustle".

dkopi 12y ago

I think that something inherent but generally unacknowledged is how Socialism and Anti capitalist ideologies rob creativity of any and all usefulness. Exploring ideas for the sake of solving real world problems, making people's lives better, is a wonderful and incomparable thing.

skidoo 12y ago
Do that without expecting financial reward, and your soapbox would hold some meaning. "Usefulness" is not synonymous for monetization. Making the world better is not synonymous for making a few people that much richer.
- dkopi 12y ago
  That's not how Human nature works. The world is filled with failed experiments of "Just do good without expecting anything in return". "From each according to his ability, to each according to his need" has failed utterly, at every scale. Be it the soviet union, or small bankrupt "kibbutzim" in Israel. Capitalism is much more than "expecting a financial reward". It's a complex system of signals which let producers determine what is the most valuable and efficient use for their resources. What Should I build in my basement? A sous vide cooker? A drone with a camera? A computer game or a new social network? Capitalism and profit give the correct signals - what is it that the market demands. What do people truly feel they need?
  - jeremysmyth 12y ago
    Agree with everything you say, but would like to comment on this: Capitalism and profit give the correct signals - what is it that the market demands. What do people truly feel they need? Art is the big gap here. Few could argue successfully that the world is not a better place for the creations of JS Bach, Kafka, Keats, Van Gogh, yet these people did not make their fortune from their life's passion and work. Only after their death were they appreciated for what they did in their figurative basements. Capitalism provides one set of signals, an overpoweringly large one at that, but it does not provide a complete picture of value to humanity.

austerity 12y ago

Imperfect as it is, money is the best available measurement of usefulness of a product or service to other people. There's nothing wrong with doing useless things for the hell of it, but attempting to put it on a morally high ground is ridiculous.

yourad_io 12y ago
> attempting to put it on a morally high ground is ridiculous Is it? In my view, organizations are almost living entities in and of themselves. They can become more ruthless than any individual because of their critical mass and "mission". Maybe I'm oversimplifying, but we have org A ("business"), primarily self-interested, and org B ("non-profit"), which isn't. Sure, there's potential for evil and corruption everywhere, but that doesn't make their two starting points one and the same. Aren't organizations built for maximizing profits inherently on a lower moral ground than non-profit organizations? edit: removed non-existent "[1]"
- austerity 12y ago
  > Aren't organizations built for maximizing profits inherently on a lower moral ground than non-profit organizations[1]? No, certainly not inherently. Even if we define moral ground as the degree of altruism of motives (which is way too narrow in my opinion), non-profits do not inherently pursue altruistic goals, but rather non-monetizable goals. But if we define it as something that the society should encourage because it's beneficial to the society then for-profits are arguably on a higher ground since they are demonstrably beneficial to people who are willingly giving them money while all some non-profits can show in their defense is abstract ideas. KKK is a non-profit.
  - mikegioia 12y ago
    But if we define it as something that the society should encourage because it's beneficial to the society then for-profits are arguably on a higher ground ... KKK is a non-profit. And Comcast is a company. Just because people give money to an organization and extract value from it doesn't mean society should encourage that company's behavior. Your argument makes no sense. You're saying: 1. Moral ground is "something society encourages because it's beneficial to society" 2. People give for-profit companies their money 3. Therefore, companies have a higher moral ground since companies are "demonstrably beneficial to people" How on earth do you arrive at that conclusion? You then throw an example of a bad non-profit (KKK) as I can equally give you an example of a bad company (Comcast) that takes people's money, provides a necessary service to their customers, but is by all accounts one of the worst, most parasitic organizations on the planet.