19
Question about ownership of the means of production (lemmy.world)
submitted 2 years ago by to c/socialism@lemmy.ml
27 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 

Howdy! I'm new here and was hoping someone might have some insight to a question I've been thinking about for a while:

If I saved up my money and bought a tractor, would it be permissible/ethical to charge others to use it when I didn't need it?

This seems awfully similar to owning the means of production. What if I instead offered to plow their fields for them instead, driving the tractor myself and negotiating fair compensation in exchange?

Sorry if this is basic stuff I'm still learning. ๐Ÿ™

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[โ€“] 3 points 2 years ago (1 child)

There are alternatives to owning a tractor yourself. Finding a group of people who would use the tractor is feasible. Setup a democratic system to control the use of the tractor and a system of dues to ensure it is well maintained. Basically treat the tractor as a commons that people can exploit in an ethical manner.

This kind of system can be expanded to all means of production in theory. All capital treated as commons for workers to use.

This has the added benefit of being feasible within the current system, makes it easier for workers to survive, and acting as material evidence for alternative economic systems.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [โ€“] [S] 1 point 2 years ago (1 child)

    Thanks for the response! I guess what I'm wondering is if owning the tractor and leasing it out could still exist alongside collective ownership?

    If I already have the means of purchasing the tractor for myself, I might not want to enter into a cooperative agreement with others and deal with the overhead that comes with it - especially if it were a scenario where I originally purchased it solely as a tool for myself. Let's say it were a simple tool like a scythe, collective ownership might seem like too much hassle when it would be more convenient if everyone just had their own.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [โ€“] 4 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago) (1 child)

    Naturally there is a breaking point where collective ownership becomes too cumbersome in relation to what is shared, for example imagine your lightbulbs go to your neighbor when you are asleep or at work. That's just not worth the bother, same for basic tools like a spade or hammer. Collective ownership makes sense for everything an average person cannot purchase or fully utilize on their own, like machinery that sits in a barn 2/3 of the time.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [โ€“] [S] 1 point 2 years ago (1 child)

    If I understand correctly, society would democratically decide that lightbulbs are approved for private ownership but that tractors would not be?

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [โ€“] 2 points 2 years ago (1 child)

    It doesnt necessarily mean direct democracy on every miniscule detail of societal organization, there would be - as is now - a bunch of well versed administrators, scientists, economists, ideologists and so forth working out the most practical and efficient way to do things.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [โ€“] [S] 1 point 2 years ago (1 child)

    Either way I'm not sure why it's anyone else's business whether or not I simply own the thing. If I'm the only one who uses it, it's not harming anyone else.

    If I don't feel like ploughing the fields by hand, shouldn't it be my decision to invest my labour into something that will make my life easier, regardless of what others think?

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [โ€“] 2 points 2 years ago

    The basic idea of shared means is that if you let someone privately own the means you deprive everyone else of that resource, unless you pay them to use the means, and then you are back to private ownership.

    You are also creating an incentive not to share your tilling machine freely, because you're now in debt and if you let your neighbors use it for free, why is that fair if you paid for it? Might as well charge them for it, and if youre smart you start lobbying against the others buying a communal machine, because then nobody would pay to loan out yours any more.

    Instead the tilling machine is paid for by all local farmers together, meaning nobody has to go in debt or pay for using it. Who gets to use it and when is just a matter of scheduling, and if wait times are too long you buy another together.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent