New Data Shows Just How Unequal Wealth Has Become in the U.S. Since the 80s - Polidicks

[QUOTE=SM0K3 B4N4N4;28316644]yes because it's all the republican's fault even though Clinton has done his fair share to help this happen and Obama hasn't stopped it. The US government has been slowly becoming the tool for the super rich ever since Reagan or even Nixon, and we're not the only country.[/QUOTE] Obama tried to stop the bush tax buts but nooooo republicans gotta say no to everything.

[QUOTE=Xen Tricks;28316853]Making hypothetical statements about what could or could not happen to art when we're not even talking about that is pretty bad. Ok a communistic society is formed from a bunch of artists. Bam art gets funded because they like it. That sure was hard to counter.[/QUOTE] Sure except for that one artist that wants to produce and spread art that the others don't approve of. Therefore he gets no funding and consequently is not able to produce his work. [editline]27th February 2011[/editline] [QUOTE=imasillypiggy;28316851]There would be a lot more artists if people didn't have to spend most of there time competing with each other.[/QUOTE] What? Really reread that sentence and make sure it makes sense to you. A lot of shit art maybe.

[QUOTE=Strider*;28316884]Sure except for that one artist that wants to produce and spread art that the others don't approve of. Therefore he gets no funding and consequently is not able to produce his work.[/QUOTE] No funding? how much would a brush cost? I mean it doesn't cost resources to spread art over the internet.

[QUOTE=imasillypiggy;28316901]No funding? how much would a brush cost? I mean it doesn't cost resources to spread art over the internet.[/QUOTE] It doesn't cost resources to spread art over the internet? You seriously are fucking retarded. [editline]27th February 2011[/editline] How about the scanner that scanned the work, the computer that analyzed it, and the internet connection which sent it?

[QUOTE=Strider*;28316884]Sure except for that one artist that wants to produce and spread art that the others don't approve of. Therefore he gets no funding and consequently is not able to produce his work. [editline]27th February 2011[/editline] What? Really reread that sentence and make sure it makes sense to you. A lot of shit art maybe.[/QUOTE] Ok so people complain to the Smithsonian and some offensive art gets removed and thus the artist is hindered in his ability to spread his art oh wow there's the same problem with capitalism and hey the artist can self fund and work himself to find other venues to spread his art oh hey there's a solution for both systems.

[QUOTE=Strider*;28316906]It doesn't cost resources to spread art over the internet? You seriously are fucking retarded.[/QUOTE] Sure it might cost some small amount to upload a photo onto photo bucket but its definitely less then a drop of water.

[QUOTE=Xen Tricks;28316915]hey the artist can self fund and work himself to find other venues to spread his art[/QUOTE] Yeah in capitalism [editline]27th February 2011[/editline] [QUOTE=imasillypiggy;28316929]Sure it might cost some small amount to upload a photo onto photo bucket but its definitely less then a drop of water.[/QUOTE] You're subtracting the intricacies of producing and uploading art to nothing. Seriously, critically think here.

You can spread your art in communism too.

[QUOTE=Strider*;28316932]Yeah in capitalism[/QUOTE] How can't he do this in communism? You seem to think that communism consists of a system in which every single aspect of production is controlled and absolutely no free reign is given to anyone. This is as unrealistic as pure free market capitalism and would not work out in the real world all the same. If you want to use the extremes of what's possible for an argument, ok, but do the same with capitalism. Some richer guy pays people to shut down the artist's workshop and force him out of business. Or kill him, you know. Same problem in capitalism.

I'll post this again for those of you that missed it. [quote=wikipedia (yeah)]With the collapse of the Soviet Union, the new market economy enabled the development of a gallery system, which meant that artists no longer had to be employed by the state, and could create work according to their own tastes, as well as the tastes of their private patrons. Consequently, after around 1986 the phenomenon of Nonconformist Art in the Soviet Union ceased to exist.[/quote]

Humans will always spread art and culture regardless of which socio-economic system they are in. It's human nature.

[QUOTE=Strider*;28316884] What? Really reread that sentence and make sure it makes sense to you. A lot of shit art maybe.[/QUOTE] Why would not getting paid have people paint bad?When twilight came out there were about a thousand copiers. This is the same with modern warfare, moovies and many other things. Find something and copy it. Thats what most works of art are in order to make sure you make money and almost all of it is crap.

snip

[QUOTE=Xen Tricks;28316952]Some richer guy pays people to shut down the artist's workshop and force him out of business. Or kill him, you know. Same problem in capitalism.[/QUOTE] How can you pay to shut down someones own private property? How does capitalism allow murder? Why am I even wasting my time here you guys have absolutely no argument.

[QUOTE=Strider*;28316954]I'll post this again for those of you that missed it.[/QUOTE] That was due more to the totalitarian structure of the government than the economic structure and you know it. The USSR was a shitty place for many many more reasons than communism, it's not some simplistic good and evil with capitalism v communism. [QUOTE=Strider*;28316971]How can you pay to shut down someones own private property? How does capitalism allow murder? Why am I even wasting my time here you guys have absolutely no argument.[/QUOTE] You can buy the property from the leasing company if it's under lease. Or you can just exercise your economic might to force any gallery not to show the artist's work.

[QUOTE=Habsburg;28316956]Humans will always spread art and culture regardless of which socio-economic system they are in. It's human nature.[/QUOTE] I never said they won't. I said that "capitalism sure as hell harbors and supports art more than any other economic system known to man".

Yeah I mean capitalism is terrible but it ain't anarchy Xen.

[QUOTE=Strider*;28316932] You're subtracting the intricacies of producing and uploading art to nothing. Seriously, critically think here.[/QUOTE] Holy molly I dont know what to say to this. I mean do you understand that me uploading something I made in ms paint will cost practically nothing resource wise.

[QUOTE=Xen Tricks;28316979]That was due more to the totalitarian structure of the government than the economic structure and you know it. The USSR was a shitty place for many many more reasons than communism, it's not some simplistic good and evil with capitalism v communism.[/QUOTE] The only way for an artist to achieve funding and the method of spreading their work was through the state. Capitalism is a much better and more free option. [editline]27th February 2011[/editline] [QUOTE=imasillypiggy;28316993]Holy molly I dont know what to say to this. I mean do you understand that me uploading something I made in ms paint will cost practically nothing resource wise.[/QUOTE] Other than the fucking computer you used with the mouse and keyboard as well as the fucking internet connection you dolt.

[QUOTE=Strider*;28316986]I never said they won't. I said that "capitalism sure as hell harbors and supports art more than any other economic system known to man".[/QUOTE] The Renaissance happened long before capitalism existed so your theory is bunk.

[QUOTE=Strider*;28316954]I'll post this again for those of you that missed it.[/QUOTE] The soviet unions personal dislike of some art has really nothing to do with communism but everything to do with no free speech laws.

[QUOTE=Strider*;28316986]I never said they won't. I said that "capitalism sure as hell harbors and supports art more than any other economic system known to man".[/QUOTE] The entire point here is that it all depends on the society and the people in power. Communism can support art as much as capitalism, and crush it as much as capitalism [QUOTE=Habsburg;28316991]Yeah I mean capitalism is terrible but it ain't anarchy Xen.[/QUOTE] I'm talking about the most lassiez faire stuff.

goddamnit stop talking about russia, it has nothing to do communism, russia had and still has the most fucked up government no matter how much revolutionizing they do and Stalin was one of the biggest mass murderers in human history, that's like only making arguments about Nazi Germany in an argument about socialized medicine.

[QUOTE=Habsburg;28317001]The Renaissance happened long before capitalism existed so your theory is bunk.[/QUOTE] The Renaissance consisted of artists who were funded primarily by powerful patrons who were mostly bureaucrats and controlled the work their artists produced. Michelangelo, Donatello, and Da Vinci are all examples and all of them were censored at least once. [editline]27th February 2011[/editline] [QUOTE=Pockets;28317022]goddamnit stop talking about russia, it has nothing to do communism[/QUOTE] It had the absence of a capitalist system, I'm not attacking communism here I'm promoting capitalism. I've explained this point far too many times.

[QUOTE=Strider*;28316995]Other than the fucking computer you used with the mouse and keyboard as well as the fucking internet connection you dolt.[/QUOTE] If we are talking about communism then thankfully that would be provided. But even so good thing the public libraries let you use a computer for free so you can spend a second to upload something meaning you don't even have to own a computer.

[QUOTE=imasillypiggy;28317008]The soviet unions personal dislike of some art has really nothing to do with communism but everything to do with no free speech laws.[/QUOTE] Not if the state funds, promotes, and spreads the art because then they would only support the art they approve of.

[QUOTE=Strider*;28317027]The Renaissance consisted of artists who were funded primarily by powerful patrons who were mostly bureaucrats and controlled the work their artists produced. Michelangelo, Donatello, and Da Vinci are all examples and all of them were censored at least once.[/QUOTE] That doesn't make it capitalist.

[QUOTE=imasillypiggy;28317048]If we are talking about communism then thankfully that would be provided. But even so good thing the public libraries let you use a computer for free so you can spend a second to upload something meaning you don't even have to own a computer.[/QUOTE] The libraries buy those computers from companies who market their computers through capitalism and buy their books from authors who were able to produce work because of capitalism. Should I continue?

[QUOTE=Strider*;28317055]Not if the state funds, promotes, and spreads the art because then they would only support the art they approve of.[/QUOTE] Or all art if the state isn't oppressive. This is not an intrinsic value of communism, stop using the USSR as a reference.

they were usually censored on religious grounds anywho.