Tfw capitalism won't pay me for my master's degree in queer feminist black nationalism discourse studies

even the fag gets it

Why are you so focused on such a narrow concept like value. Works of art are not simply as valuable as what someone is willing to pay for them. John Miltons contribution to the world is not the $29.99 you can get his complete works for. Similarly having a populace educated in art, history, philosophy, religion, literature is valuable in its own right beyond what the narrow concept of economic value suggests.
Imagine if everyone in the world was turned into into your homo economicus in which people only cared about what has value in capitalism. They would have no past, no future, no culture, no deeper understanding of anything. Just dumb drones living out their meaningless lives. Well I guess you actually dont have to imagine it, just look around.

Works of art are only valuable because someone is willing to pay for them, and the supply is extremely limited (often to unique pieces)

So, per definition, the works of a dead artist have to more valuable than those of a living one. Simply because a dead artist can't produce more works.

This is almost self-evident if you look at history, and hardly any creative actor gets rich before they die.

You can't blame society or any abstract system for that.

Okay, name me a system in which art and music have flourished more than they have under capitalism. I'm not really sure what he wants. I'm currently in my second year for a history degree, and I plan on being a teacher, and later a professor. Literature amounts to either being an english teacher, or writing, and if you can't write a good novel before getting a literature degree, you won't be able to write one afterwards either.
Art sure, if you need instruction on how to paint/draw/play an instrument, then obviously you need schooling. But I guess I have to ask, what determines the value of your art? If we're in a free market system and people don't like your art, then you won't be doing well financially, but how does it even work in a non-free-market situation? How does the painter make his money? Does he make money? Is money a thing anymore? If not, then are painters government assigned jobs? That seems way worse.
If it's say, government-run schools looking for people that have a talent for it, do they just put them through art training, and have them become a state-employed artist? Do they only do commissions for the state, or can they do whatever they want? To me it seems like capitalism is really the best system for artists since their work has not intrinsic value, but rather subjective value, and items/jobs with subjective value do very well in a free market.

Attached: 1508791911111.jpg (1101x1518, 444K)

Feudalism.

>need an art degree to be an artist
This faggot is just mad he's shit at art.

You're not wrong that it does well, but again, it's state-commissioned works. In a capitalist system, an artist just does his thing and if people like it, then he can just keep doing his thing. For the kind of art that most people want to produce today, capitalism is the better system. Though I would definitely make the argument that higher-quality art comes out of feudal/monarchist societies, but from the artist's perspective, it's less desirable.

Ask a historian. 30% of their coursework was desperate rationalizing of why we need historians.

The science and arts are infinitely more valuable and useful than some shitty kike financial system.
>you will see capitalism die in your lifetime

>capitalism has failed art degrees

Ohohoho honey. If you’re an artist and can’t make any money on commissions or get a job with your portfolio, then you’re a shit artist.

Once again, capitalism rewards general competence at a skill and the initiative taken to make a profit from that skill.

They're not wrong.

I was always a capitalist, but always looked up to art. Imagine working 40 hours per week that paid, then having a 60 hour per week job that never paid and you did for free because you had to express something no matter the cost. That's passion towards something I can only respect.

You chose to live that life though. Be glad capitalism allows you to have a smartphone and not starve to death while still giving you enough free time to attempt what you want.

I'm a good artist, trust me no one cares. At all.

>if people like it, then he can just keep doing his thing.
What happens when no one knows he exists? In what you call "capitalism" whoever controls the information of the market controls the popularity, what you're talking about is literally less meritocratic than an autocratic maniac choosing to patronise whoever makes him sound smart to patronise.

Capitalism without perfectly free information flow is a failure and when it does get to that point it's not really capitalism anymore.

Feudalism was a product of its economic mode of production. Its not possible today have an economy based on agricultural landlords. Our economy is centered around industry and our politics has to accomedate that fact. The future is national bolshevism with a hereditary ruler.

This is what Im talking about. The concept that you can boil and reduce all of our cultural development and production to a price point means you will never truly appreciate the real value of culture and will lose it.

>you will never appreciate the value of things you don't really need
Sweety, even fucking Davinci wasn't a really big deal before he died

>Art Degree
Literally pissing yourself in public, squatting over a canvas and letting your period blood fall on it or making shitty statue of a guy sucking himself off
>History degree
Why the ancient egyptian pharaohs were black africans and here's the history of Wakanda.
>Literature degree
How Harry Potter warned racism under the Trump administration.

Gee I wonder why capitalists don't want to pay for all my shit?

>Go into a field that doesn't make money
>Why am I not making money? THIS IS SOMEONE ELSE'S FAULT!

Capitalism won't pay for white nationalism either. It's a disgusting system that tramples all over morals, seeks to make drugs legal, promotes degeneracy, and profits from abortion.
Just because our enemies hate capitalism, doesn't make capitalism our friend either. A white ethnostate will be destroyed from within if it adopts the same economic system as we have now.

when you're talking to a marxist realise that they think if they won there'd be a beethoven on every street corner. their very understanding of how human beings are moulded and develop is based on severe delusion that only even became mildly accepted as an over-reaction to the nazis going a bit far with the race and eugenics stuff.

Those things are fucking hobbies. Thank capitalism if you can afford to blow $50k chasing degrees in a hobby.

Art, music, and literature flourished under Communism because a signifigant portion of economic production was funneled to culture. The Soviet school of film was completely revolutionary and its adoption in the west is the split between what we consider primative vs modern film. It especially helped the art that capitalism no longer values like classical music and theator.
Capitalism revolves around accumulation not simply value. You get more out than you put in and then you have to reinvest in that to make more money than you put in, etc, etc. That doesnt really work for most art. Pumping tons of money into one writer wont triple his production so usually art gets left on the wayside of capitalism.

The Marxists did win and deep down they know Beethoven's talent is rare, so they reconstructed standards in art to become something most average people are capable of. This is post modernism, it's a critique or objection against modernism which (despite sounding just as horrid) is at least difficult to create.

What happens when art is truly at a high standard? There are fewer artists of course.

What you call communism was economically communist but artistically fascist, which is more similar to how art was under feudalism than under capitalism. This is how the soviets began to realise Marxist ideas are only useful in destroying and reconstructing systems, Marxism can't be used for positive results.

Capitalism, which treats land like capital, is what the Laissez Faire economists were arguing AGAINST, by calling for land value taxation to replace all other taxes.

Capitalism, like communism, is the financial enslavement of society through real estate, feudalism.

>Monarchy: a family collects most of the land rent and invests it as they see fit.

>Oligopoly: financiers do it.

>Democracy: the public does it.

Attached: correct.png (1024x565, 58K)

But why did Da Vinci even exist in the first place? It was because you had an economic system that pumped tons of money into the arts. You say he wasnt a big deal but his entire life was paid for by beneficiaries and he was able to spend his enitre life thinking and painting because people valued that. We will never have a modern da vinci for that reason. Our economic realities mean ours is a culture of sitcoms and star wars movies

Yup, you can certainly CHASE your dreams.
That doesn't mean you can catch them or that your dreams are worth a single shit.

You need to speak to your president and tell to get some to get rid of those fucking useless degrees.

The scholarship programs from your nation which are offered here, cover for very fucking useless degrees.

Yet they don't cover for any of the stem courses.

That's why we need Communism because in Communism those degrees are useful

So what you're saying is that the quality of art isn't dictated by artists, because talented and passionate artists will always exist, but whatever the demand for art is? a single tasteful patron giving a million to the arts is worth more than the billions of the unwashed masses.

Da Vinci didn't have a degree in art and he has more great works than all the art school "artists" of the last 70 years combined.

>We will never have a modern da vinci for that reason

>what are companies

Well I am a communist fascist so I essentially agree. Though I think marxs valued art its only liberal capitalists who dont. Marxist economics are perfect for creating an economic system but our values need to be based in tradition.

You are supposed to work and pay for it yourself if you want it that much.

Neither can capitalism you moron. Capitalism hates actual quality culture, it despises its existence. It must constantly destroy culture to produce new markets.

As said, under capitalism, such things as classical music, theater, poetry - the high art - don't exist. Capitalism debases all of these things - it turns composers into soundtrack designers for rappers; it turns theaters into places where race mixing musicals are straged; it turns poetry into horrible "slam poetry" or rap lyrics which are crude and disgusting. Above all, it cheapens, coarsens, and filthies every single thing of quality it sees, all so it can sell it to the lowest common denominator.

It's not a Communism vs Capitalism battle. It's a human spirit vs materialism battle. Both communism and capitalism are materialist ideologies. You need to look beyond them.

Yeab Disney and Viacom are truly producing art equivilant to the greats of western culture.
Fuck off

I like how no one bothered replying to your Stormfag word salad. Pick up an economics textbook sometime, idiot.

If art is what you want to create you DONT need to spend 20k to go to a college. You just do it.

>everyone who reads economic textbooks becomes capitalists
oh honey no

how about car manufacturers? Are cars not works of art?
What about computers? Are you argueing that mobile phones are not pieces of art?
How about video games? Are they art?
What about the music industry? That one didn't even exist before 1900.
How about architecture? Wouldn't you agree that modern architecture outdoes medieval one in terms of grandeur?

>tl;dr you are a mongoloid

Exactly. Butit couldnt be millions today. The amount of money pumped into arts by the pateons of old would have amounted to billions or trillions of dollars in today's world.

>people only cared about what has value in capitalism
>what has value IN CAPITALISM
This faulty conceptualization reveals a fundamental lack of understanding. It shows that you believe "capitalism" to be a social construct which has man-made rules, as if it were a game created by people rather than a description of what people do naturally. Supply and Demand are not artificial constructs. What exists and what people want are concepts, but not arbitrarily invented categories.

Thus, too, is the concept of value (a constituent component of Demand) no arbitrary thing with only one mode. Value is something infinitely variable depending on the context, but also tied to (and necessarily limited by) the extant possibilities in a physical world. What does or does not have value, or the specific value attributed to anything, is entirely a matter of personal opinion and solely in the hands of every individual. The value I place on an item will differ from your ascribed value for the same item. This value arises from natural processes, it is not assigned (as if by government fiat) by an external force called Capitalism: The System.

I WANT THE FREEDOM TO TYRANNISE EVERYONE ELSE WITH MY DEGENERACY

Mate. You don’t do art for people to care. It’s like you’re creating Bc you want to be a commercial success and then your arts stale but you blame society? Some of the most famous artists of all time died impoverished and undiscovered. Art is a passion. Passion is pain. You don’t do it for money.

Da Vinci had a patron, he may have lived in a Republic but most modes of employment even in Florence were similar to how it worked in the feudal systems. Likewise, Bach's patron was Frederick the great, Haydn's patron was some random prince and Chopin (and liszt) was really the first people to be massively patronised by a large group of people, more similar to ecelebs collecting beta bux than a musician being signed to a record label and having a promoter push their music to radio stations and commercials.

This is my gripe with capitalism, who controls the "deals" and marketing? Capitalism is not a meritocracy when it comes to art.

If you're a communist, you're after equal outcome? If so, you would only hear "privilege" in well constructed art, a true and pure Marxist would only appreciate art that the masses are capable of constructing, nothing else could be egalitarian in their eyes.

Bach was a bourgeoisie.

Capitalism as control by the rich is like that, yes. It's easier to find 100 people willing to be autotuned than it is to find a single person with a 4 octave range and perfect intonation.

Later stage capitalism should be more in control by the people, ironically those fiercely anti communist ecelebs who collect donation money to subsist are closer to something Marx would agree is socialist than the aberration that is state controlled command economies.

I don't have any solutions to be honest, so capitalism makes shitty art? It puts the food on the table cheaply.

An economics textbook talks about culture, does it?
I'm not talking about prosperity, or wealth - clearly capitalism generates that. I'm talking about things that ACTUALLY matter for survival - family, traditional values, culture, stability and order. And capitalism destroys all of that.
Who funds pride parades? Who makes donations to Planned Parenthood? Who airs advertisements that promote race mixing? Who funds the political lobbies for drug legislation and mass migration? Large companies, the products of free market capitalism. Capitalism is AGAINST and is in OPPOSITION to tradition, culture and heritage. Capitalism is FOR and PROMOTES open borders, multiculturalism and degeneracy. Do you deny that?

No artist "just does it" they were always supported by their society and economy to create. Our economy does not support artists in any way. Hell if you want to think of it like that Da Vinci actually did go to art school for a long ass time to be able to do the things he did.

I’m a history major so forgive me for being biased
but it goes without saying that your reasoning is incredibly myopic, and you wonder why the left was dominating the culture war for so long
The saying goes “to the victors go the spoils” and parts of those spoils is historical narratives. The right has been fighting on the lefts home court for so long that both conservatives and liberals invoke the nazis as the greater evil when the communist regimes were just as if not more destructive and genocidal.

For example, in the 1950’s, Oxford university’s history department was filled with mostly conservatives, whose conservative viewpoints wove the historical narratives of their times. This meant that the department had maybe a labor voter here or there, and maybe one or two commies
By 1980, the whole entire dept was labor voters, with maybe one conservative who was hiding in the dark, and a couple commie/socialists whose work was so niche they were huddled in their own departments

In the current day, about 1/3 of oxfords history dept is filled with avowed socialists/commies, the rest being labor or green voters, and conservatives are non existent, and, if they do exist, they’re in exile or hiding. This information comes from one of the only ““““conservative”””” historians from the island, Niall Ferguson

Tell me, do you want commies and socialists teaching European/English/American history classes? I can tell you, in my experience, it’s been absolute bedlam

I’m trying to change that, though. But this idea that history degrees are completely worthless lacks a ton of foresight

>It puts the food on the table cheaply.
So for you, the belly being full but the soul empty is what matters?
his is why we're losing here, why we're being replaced by niggers, shitskins and seeing our race polluted. Because you'd rather have your cheap Doritos and Coke rather than tradition and racial pride.

Society does support artists, but only artists that are actually good, the faggots making movies, games, music, etc, not the faggots throwing a paint bucket into a canvas and calling it "art"

"Boo-hoo-hoo, my Gender Studies degree only makes me fit to work at Wal Mart.... Mommy!"

>I need to pay thousands of dollars for a degree to draw things/read off wikipedia articles from my phone/read shit

Does comminism pay artists umiversal salary simply because they are artists? Fo people think they will get paid for doing nothing in a communist/socialist economy? I honestly dont get how these people think, or am missing something

Creating art just for passion requires drugs, when you're sober you want people to listen to it or see it because art that's invisible might as well not exist. A digital media file does not make a sound until it's opened.

I had to quit drugs for my job, which in turn sucked all the motivation from my art, because who gives a fuck? For every ten views I get Alphabet™ will only count one, that's capitalism. They control the marketing and they control what you can see or hear.

I'm (was) supported by my job and weed that made me think what I was doing was worth it.

Sorry, I live on earth where food costs money.

So what's your solution, to have a Ministry of Culture run by Nazis to act as the culture police and ban anything "degenerate"?

Here's a question why would you need a degree to write a book? Good writing is a trade skill and having one won't effect you if you try to get published. Why is it people feel compelled to take garbage degrees when they aren't needed same applies to Africa studies and Art.

>What about the music industry? That one didn't even exist before 1900.
>Austrian

Attached: 1.jpg (1080x1440, 145K)

> Capitalism hates actual quality culture, it despises its existence. It must constantly destroy culture to produce new markets.

Where do such nonsense ideas even come from? First, Capitalism is not an organism which desires anything. It is, at best, a bad (incomplete) description of observable natural processes: the ebb and flow of supply and demand in a free market. Second, there is nothing inherent to these processes which despise or necessarily seek to destroy anything. Third, there is no requirement that any given kind of "culture" be destroyed to produce new markets. New markets arise from identifying new needs or meeting old needs in a better or more effective/efficient manner.

Because they dont think. Many of the best artists through history were peniless. Only with the advent of capitalism did artists start making fortunes off of their art

do you understand what industry means? Mozart didn't exactly sell records you tard

Yes your right and the key is those patrons were always part of the government. Our current government actors dont invest anything in art.

>If you're a communist, you're after equal outcome? If so, you would only hear "privilege" in well constructed art, a true and pure Marxist would only appreciate art that the masses are capable of constructing, nothing else could be egalitarian in their eyes.
That is not at all what marxists want. Communists dont care about equality of outcome. Communist concerns are way more complex that that of social democrats. Its capitalists who want to appeal to the masses, communism wants to elevate people past the base state that capitalism put them in. If yiu actually read what the "cultural marxists" were talking about its essentially that capitalism destroys and subverts higher culture and just leaves base "mass art" that will never achieve anything meaningful.

I notice how you STILL haven't engaged with my central point. You can't admit to yourself that all the degenerate shit we see today is solely because of free market, liberal capitalism.

And no - in a society where the human spirit is but first, where we're not seen as economic units, where traditional and morality are as omnipresent as air and water, you don't need state authority to judge culture. You know, just like how for the hundreds of years prior to the advent of your economic system we had culture and art that were beautiful, traditional, and eternal in their beauty. In the 100 years since your system took over, all we've had is transient and ugly "art" that has only one purpose - to sell shit.

I see where you're going here but see and to a lesser extent They're all Marxists. They see using skills as bourgeois and privileged and reeking of irrelevance due to a romanticism of a dead past. For instance, composition classes don't teach counterpoint anymore, let alone prolongation or the symphonic form. That's elitist white supremacy, no, they teach how to chop up amen breaks now.

Died very poor because he kept offending patrons away, Don Giovanni and the magic flute worked out for him though.

He's actually right.

What happens when art requires a 140iq to create? Talent sources struggle and marketers can't fully explain the difference between artists. Now if you can get the masses to listen to a drooling idiot looping something released from before they were born, you've just hit the goldmine.

>Communists dont care about equality of outcome.
Why am I responding to you?

>being this retarded

Without the arts our culture wouldn't exist.

>What are concerts

>lumping history degrees together with someone shitting on a canvas
Historians actually have some use for society, making old knowledge accessible and preserving knowledge are both important for society.
Some turbo faggot reinterpreting a book anyone can read for the 1000th time on the other hand is completely useless, you also don't need to go to university to become an "artist".

>star wars 7 battle feild 5 is good art not Bach or da vinci
When did capitalist become so ONIONS

And these people have the fucking audacity to call themselves intellectuals who often shout capitalism has failed and spew nonsense that Communism would be ideal for artists and writers. If they honestly think this then they failed history class.

a business but not an industry. You really don't know what industry means, do you?

I concede that history degrees have value within acedemia. The one useful purpose to which such information may be put is to replicate itself. It is also to the greater good that such history never be forgotten. We get into difficulty in exactly the area you described, which is: who do we entrust to be the arbiters and how should they be funded. I have a deep mistrust of government beneficence, yet history may also be corrupted by other self-interested benefactors.

To recall the OP, it would be of benefit to the individual to adequately research the demand for history professors rather than blindly assuming a well-paid position would magically avail itself upon graduation, thus obviating their lament of underemployment.

>What is the service industry

You don't need a degree in anything to sell your art. If people are willing to spend money on it and you are willing to accept whatever payment they are giving you, you have magically started doing art for money.
Throttling is generally used to describe an isp lowering up/down speeds, but I don't see what that has to do with art unless you consider streaming your drawing process art.

He toured a bit though.

> I notice how you STILL haven't engaged with my central point. You can't admit to yourself that all the degenerate shit we see today is solely because of free market, liberal capitalism

Humanity has had market capitalism since the 1800's, and we were fine up until the 1980's or so. The problem is leftism, not capitalism. Leftism subverts and degenerates culture. If the culture is good, capitalism is good. If the culture is shit, capitalism is shit. The solution is to fight leftism, not capitalism.

What's your solution, exactly? Returning to what we had before capitalism means returning to feudalism, which is moronic.

>New markets arise from identifying new needs
And how do you achieve that, culturally? By breaking down taboos. By mixing cultures. By tearing down morality.

PERFECT EXAMPLE - homosexuality. Used to be a taboo, because it was dangerous to society. Capitalism (as a shorthand for the actions of what people do) saw homosexuality as a great market to make profit from (the "gay brand" could sell money - see economist.com/britain/2006/02/02/village-people). But you can't profit from what is illegal - so they pushed for homosexual "rights", and got it.

ANOTHER EXAMPLE - drug laws. Who's pushing the move for cannabis legislation? Think tanks like the Adam Smith Institute, funded by big business. Why? Because massive profits can be made selling this currently illegal substance. And why is it illegal? Because it's a poison, a filth that degenerates minds and ruins individuals. But capitalism doesn't care about such things as human spirit or human morality, it cares about profit.

I've given you two examples. I could give you hundreds more concerning abortion or divorce laws or pushing for mass migration or women in the workplace. I have shown you, concretely, how capitalism as a system works against morality. How are you so incapable of being this blind to how malignant capitalism is to traditional societies?

You can't prove your point by keeping on using the term wrong

>Industry is the production of goods or related services within an economy
What exactly is the good or related service of Mozart Inc.?

Fucken retards, swear to god.

I think it's very profitable.

>Why am I responding to you?
Read actual communist not what memes about it youve heard. Communists care about the system of capitalism because of the specific way in which it operates. Communism creates equality as an outcome of their critque of capitalism not from an a priori belief that everything must always be equal.

The service industries (More formally termed: 'tertiary sector of industry' by economists) involve the provision of services to businesses as well as final consumers. Such services include accounting, tradesmanship (like mechanic or plumber services), computer services, restaurants, tourism, etc.

Hence, a service Industry is one where no goods are produced whereas primary industries are those that extract minerals, oil etc. from the ground and secondary industries are those that manufacture products, including builders, but not remodeling contractors.

See and And combine with the fact that these are backed by
STATE ASSURED LOANS, SUBSIDISED BY THE TAXPAYER'S OWN POCKET.

What fiscal value does their degree give back to those who paid for it?
Engineers and scientists push boundaries and innovate technologically, growing the economy on a real basis.
Lawyers officiate and offer contractual redress in addition to pushing the cart of criminal justice.
Medics keep people alive and healthy to continue their lives and cheaper than otherwise.

Art degrees that are not vocationally focused on application, and literature degrees that output lazy, faux bloggers that wear the label of journalists, do not support the weaving of our continuing culture. At most, they support the creation of trash culture, the forgettable and disposed after use!
Even history and archaelogical degrees have veered heavily towards this, and the academics of constant revisionism on every front swamp work towards actually uncovering forgotten strands of our cultural past!
They have absolutely nothing to do with the historically lauded studies they once were, to become of an understanding of such a vast array of disciplines and perspectives in literature, history, philosophy, theology, law, art, sciences, mathematics, all together! All of that, is gone!

The meme of le capitalist is a reality of the fucking jew, in any nation. The universal nature of capital, and market instruments of any economy, has nothing to do with it - only the jew, which will find its way in like ants and rodents in any gap overlooked, in every place it goes.
In these cases, they have conned the countless unwashed who blame any misfortune not on themselves for their bad choices, but upon the most convenient option. They are the beggars, the cheats, the drunkards, the whores, the gamblers, the thieves and the workshy deluded fools of a modern era.

>things that don't generate value
>waah why do people discourage me from going for these?

Chase =/= fullifil.
No system lets you fullifil your dreams if said dreams aren't realistic.
The dream of being a writer or artist is realistic for less than 0.1% of people.
Capitalism is just honest about your odds.

>we were fine until the 80's
the cultural rot that caused that started much earlier. the destruction of the family began in the 50's and kicked into high gear in the 60's.

>notice how all of these have to do with the supply, maintainance, or management of physical goods or management of accounts.
At this point you have to be trolling. Nobody can be this stupid.

No Grettel it is just your poor attempt of being a pedant has totally failed to mask the fact that your point was stupid and you know it.

>art has no va-
Daily reminder this shit sold for 86.9million

Attached: modernart.jpg (640x733, 55K)

So create art and learn history. No one is stopping you. And anyone who wants what you are selling will pay you. If they don't, they wont. What makes you think your concepts of "art" and "history" are inherently more valuable or more worthy of preservation than mine? Who do you think should be forced to pay you to make art or collect history? Why shouldn't they be forced to pay me? Or why should anyone be forced to pay at all?

>Humanity has had market capitalism since the 1800's
No it hasn't. Up until 1920, nations were still Mercantilist, were heavily protectionist, and had massive tariffs on foreign imports. See the British Corn Laws as a perfect example. The free market did not exist in those times - capitalism was constrained (thank God) by such things as national honour, conservative concern for a nation's people, a desire to protect national industry.

Free market capitalism has only existed since 1920 onwards, the EXACT point at which things start going to shit - the degenerate shit we see in Weimar (child prostitution, a big business in those days; or drugs; or the sale of alcohol in the USA). You fuckers deny it when you're on here, but when you're busy browsing the Cato Institute or the ASI, you proudly proclaim how free market capitalism spreads your "liberal" values i.e. ani-tradition, degeneracy, and selfish hedonism.

If you choose to resort to personal attacks, I will accept my victory. Next time just look up a definition when you're told you're talking shit

>If people are willing to spend money on it
Which they're not because I'm throttled so hard for some reason.

>I don't see what that has to do with art
Lower view things are valued less by algorithms, meaning they're less likely to be suggested. Basically to find my stuff I have to actually post links and force you to listen, which if I do that on Jow Forums I'll just be asking for hate. Rule 1/2 also works the other way around, don't mention yourself here.

Basically Alphabet™ really do not like me, also Twitter periodically throttles me as well. I'll get up to 100-500 impressions, then I'll have to verify because "community guidelines" then I can't get more than 10 impressions.

This is capitalism, it's their services they do with what they want. It's not good capitalism, they've stifled the information flow deliberately to reconstruct the narrative to fit what they find comfortable. They want people like me hidden because people like me make the people who can't really do much besides moderate community guidelines uncomfortable, so they lash out by abusing their power.