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€“] 8 points 2 years ago (2 children)

The point is not over your tractor, individually. If you were living under marxism, society would have decided "all [farming equipment, factories, whatever] are the property of the community and you cannot own them individually". You couldn't lease your tractor, because you couldn't own the tractor to begin with.

Markets largely still exist in socialism we see today because capitalism is extremely pervasive. A socialist state currently is forced to behave like a capitalist entity to at least the outside world, or they will be taken advantage of by capitalists. Because of this, all socialists states today are internally capitalist with some social programs, as opposed to fully Marxists.

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

    Yeah.. another way to say it would be:

    Giving things (especially means of production) the attribute of property, "being property of X", is a contingent human decision. It's ONE specific way of organizing the handling of things (tightly connected to the idea that the "owner" uses the given thing for his*her own benefit).

    Another way of organizing things, aka mode of decision making regarding ressources (nature, labour, and its products), production, distribution would be having a king that tells everyone what to do. Another option would be democracy: "Oh dang, we got a tractor over here. Let's see how we can use it best to fulfill the next important need"

    That way you are right, your community (feat. You) would decide what to do with your tractor. Depending on how long capitalism would be gone at that time, people just might look at you a bit puzzled when you call it "yours". You know, since the idea of you being given the power to decide over a tractor you didn't build and can't consume, is quite weird ;)

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

    Thanks for your response! I'm imagining in my scenario, perhaps the tractor doesn't exist until someone decides that one is desired and then a cooperative of fabricators builds one in exchange for what its workers consider to be fair compensation for their labour. As a farmer, perhaps I agree to exchange several years worth of grain for one of their tractors. As the individual who grew and harvested the grain personally, wouldn't it make sense saying that I have a greater right to "own" the tractor over my peers who maybe chose to use their share of grain to purchase different things?

    Perhaps they didn't feel like a tractor was as necessary a use of resources as say a silo or mill would be? Or maybe collectively we agreed to purchase those things and it was with only the resources out of the whole I have been permitted to expend for personal use that I purchased the tractor with - others spending it on home improvements or a nicer car for example?

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

    Thanks for your response! As I understand, even under marxism I still have the ability to use the product of my labour to buy things for my personal use? Like if I want to own a painting or piece of art, I can exchange the products of my labour with an artist for the products of their labour.

    Regarding ownership, personal property still exists on some level, right? I don't want other people wearing my clothes or sleeping in my bed for instance. I might not even want people driving my personal car if it's something that I collected, built, or restored myself.

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

    Indeed. Marx is actually very careful in distinguishing personal property (your toothbrush, your bed) from the means of production (a tractor, a lathe, a factory). If it were a society where it's needed to have a car then it would probably be your own, but it'd be better for everyone if the public infrastructure (that belongs to the community) made it so cars aren't a requirement.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent