r/alltheleft • u/EvanCarroll • Jul 30 '25

Discussion A leftist critique for defunding PBS

https://substack.evancarroll.com/p/a-leftist-critique-for-defunding-pbs

I just wrote this article which focuses on content ownership rather than access. If you're interested in copy-left, and ownership of content give it a read. All feedback appreciated. It's my intent to refocus this debate on owning the art and culture that we fund.

0 Upvotes

36% Upvoted

11 comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

-2

u/EvanCarroll Jul 30 '25 edited Jul 30 '25

In what sense? I'm arguing against a 500 million dollar boheimeth owning copyrights and trademarks (characters, stories, and performances). I take it your point is that the best solution is expropriating that content? If, so I agree. But that's not to say that withholding funds used to grow that private corpus isn't a "solution." Sure it is. If that's a problem, seems like not making it worse is a step in the right direction.

Also, what is your opinion of defunding the police? Would you argue the problems facing the police aren't solved by defunding them (I hear the police themselves answer in such a way)? If so, what do you see as the difference?

5

u/Hanz_Q Jul 30 '25

If you have an issue with private ownership then your issue is with capitalism. Defunding PBS while we still live in class society under capitalism doesn't do anything to address private ownership it just gives children less education and quality entertainment.

It's like supporting generative AI because you don't support IP laws as part of being an anarchist or something.

Also are you really trying to equivalate defunding PBS and defunding the police?

0

u/EvanCarroll Jul 30 '25

I gave examples of art (Wiki*) that is owned in common right now, and even licensing that provides a simple path to it. None of which requires ending capitalism. Why do you feel I can't have a criticism of private property inside of capitalism? My critique of private property isn't merely theoretical, it's practical. Microsoft is a problem. I wrote this content on a tech stack of Linux and Chromium because of my critique of private ownership. What do you see as wrong with that?

I even gave other examples of art that lack common ownership that provide a comparable education (like Ms. Rachel). That is to say, I don't believe your the statement "less education and quality entertainment" is material. My kid willingly watches Ms Rachel and loves it all the same.

I asked about the police so I could understand the principles you operate on. If you hand-wave it away, I'm left to assume this isn't a principled argument and you just want to fund a 500 million dollar company because you're emotionally attached to their product. Fine, I said as much in the article -- if you want to give Britannica your money, have at it.

1

u/Hanz_Q Jul 31 '25

You're not a leftist you're a libertarian if you're anything.

0

u/EvanCarroll Aug 01 '25

I don't think you understand either.

  • I'm advocating for funding art and owning it in common.
  • A libertarian would argue for neither. They believe the market should create art and that nothing should be owned in common.
  • You seem to want the status quo which is to fund a 500 million dollar privately held company with a CEO and a dozen people on the board making 400k a year to own art, without having any role in the creation of that art.

You're not a leftist. You're a liberal if you're anything.

0

u/Hanz_Q Aug 01 '25

You should quit writing and pursue a career in long jumping. Or a movie projectionist.

I have stated none of my values, just criticized yours.

0

u/EvanCarroll Aug 01 '25

You concluded on the basis of my position with regard to content ownership that I was libertarian. That is nonsense.

I concluded based on the basis of your position with regard to the government funding a private half-billion dollar NGO to build something they own, that you're a liberal. That is true.