Flipping the Coin.

Please no names this time.

I think a lot of readers of this site are interested in niche art and culture. My question is: To what extent would these niches actually survive under a different economic system? (such as socialism, communism, --- ism)

If you believe they would. Explain how. My sense is they would not. As much as we may slag the consumer, we are the consumer. For example, I get the entire spectrum of ukrainian tv stations. How? Only due to the privatization of the airwaves and the determination that 2 million U.S. and Canadian Ukrainians would add additional revenue. They were right. Thus, we get every channel via satellite or the inet.

I do not believe capitalism, by necessity, leads to conformity. I believe it opens the possibilities for greater diversity. I may listen to eritrean broadcasts, wear kuwaiti clothes, and eat ethiopian food while doing homework in ukrainian.

Is this possible under another economic system. If so, how?

OEC

It only works if enough people have the means and ways to exploit such media.

Look at the printing press. Before the advent of this technology, the only books you could get were ones which the Roman Catholic church approved monks to copy.

Television used to be the province of wealthy networks, but with the advent of cheap and fast computers with digital video editing, anyone can run a small studio with a small budget.

This leads to more creativity, more voices, and more choices. But only when the tools are cheap enough and user friendly enough to reach enough people.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by EasyRider

It only works if enough people have the means and ways to exploit such media.

Look at the printing press. Before the advent of this technology, the only books you could get were ones which the Roman Catholic church approved monks to copy.

Television used to be the province of wealthy networks, but with the advent of cheap and fast computers with digital video editing, anyone can run a small studio with a small budget.

This leads to more creativity, more voices, and more choices. But only when the tools are cheap enough and user friendly enough to reach enough people.

---

True. I suppose one could form an argument along the lines of a "digital divide" for govt intervention, but it seems the development we have to date is the product of (relatively) free markets (I'll save the govt invented the inet argument). This is always the paradox I see in a lot of the critique of the "system" (including any I may make). What I would like to see is further decentralization of media etc. I'm not sure the public as a whole agrees with me. They vote to the contrary with their pocketbooks. Still, without the advances u mention this conversation is moot. 2 cheers for capitalism?

OEC

The internet has done exactly that.

There's not enough goths in my town to make a goth record store viable, but by ghod, Metropolis, Cleopatra and other labels do fine via web sales.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by EasyRider

The internet has done exactly that.

There's not enough goths in my town to make a goth record store viable, but by ghod, Metropolis, Cleopatra and other labels do fine via web sales.

---

That's awesome!:thumb: If you are ever looking for something specific, let me know. I can find anything online. I don't understand why people hack on those of us who utilize the inet for productive purposes. Yeah we're fucking nerds and proud. The value of the connections I've made from doing sites and blogs is something I cannot even put a price tag on.:thumb:

OEC

capitalism is the only 'fun' economy, that's why we have fun things to spend our money on

What I'm saying is, the Internet has made commerce that was previously impossible, possible.

Yes, you can be successful selling to 50,000 all over the world. They no longer have to be in the same town.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by EasyRider

What I'm saying is, the Internet has made commerce that was previously impossible, possible.

Yes, you can be successful selling to 50,000 all over the world. They no longer have to be in the same town.

---

That's the message I got (and know firsthand). It is truly amazing.:thumb:

OEC

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mr Karl

capitalism is the only 'fun' economy, that's why we have fun things to spend our money on

---

It's fun for you and me 'cause we're savvy enough to flip the coin. I don't think it is the end-all be-all for everyone.

OEC

I think a lot of this sort of thing would exist in any culture, with a certain amount of variation depending on environment, but I do believe that capitalism, from an economic standpoint, is likely to be the system which best fosters it.

You probably remember the big controversy when the National Endowment for the Arts started taking a look at what they were endowing . . . and so did conservative politicians. A lot of people I knew took the stance that this was just awful, but I was like, I buy my own art supplies and sometimes have to do without, but I have freedom that way. Why should the government pay for art it disapproves of and which the taxpayers disapprove of? Doesn't make sense, so capitalism works out better for creative folks I think.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Amelia G

I think a lot of this sort of thing would exist in any culture, with a certain amount of variation depending on environment, but I do believe that capitalism, from an economic standpoint, is likely to be the system which best fosters it.

You probably remember the big controversy when the National Endowment for the Arts started taking a look at what they were endowing . . . and so did conservative politicians. A lot of people I knew took the stance that this was just awful, but I was like, I buy my own art supplies and sometimes have to do without, but I have freedom that way. Why should the government pay for art it disapproves of and which the taxpayers disapprove of? Doesn't make sense, so capitalism works out better for creative folks I think.

---

They do exist on much smaller scales. The problem being obvious: They have great difficulty staying afloat. You always had the black market in the USSR. I suppose in more benign countries, it would be possible the government would fund a wider variety of the arts. Still, the govt being the deciding factor gives me pause.

In terms of the NEA, I'd abolish it. I believe the playing surface should be level. I would make exceptions for say historical renovations but not much else. I don't believe it serves an objective purpose. I may or may not favor Mapplethorpe, but I know when I see a dying man get a bum rap for making a living. It just seems too easy a target for a segment of society whose power far exceeds their numbers. Oddly, I agree with their professed solution in this instance.

OEC

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by OneEyedCat

It's fun for you and me 'cause we're savvy enough to flip the coin. I don't think it is the end-all be-all for everyone.

OEC

---

the only reason it's not the end all be all for everyone is because some people aren't willing to do what it takes to get folks to trade with them

all a matter of perspective

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mr Karl

the only reason it's not the end all be all for everyone is because some people aren't willing to do what it takes to get folks to trade with them

all a matter of perspective

---

Fair enough. I'm still for capitalism to some degree. I believe some do need some help though. I am libertarian in some areas. I also believe in social programs for disabled and elderly , free basic health care, better access to education. Not the system as it is, however. I would gut all the business subsidies at once. I would eliminate entire departments.:thumb:

OEC