Who owns the means of production?
I am basically paraphrasing Von Mises here. I, therefore, cannot take credit for the ideas or concepts of this paper. I'm merely writing it as a means to explain to those that have not been exposed to Ludwig Von Mises his core idea: only the individual owns the authority to the right of the means of production. I will illustrate this point below.
Let's say that my friend comes to me and says that he and a few people are getting together to form a kind of commune. They plan on eliminating money. He tells me that he really wants me to join and tells me that I can be whatever I want in his new commune. I tell him I'll join if I can be an artist that paints with oil paints. He suggests that such would make him very happy because his new commune is going to need artists (more than he knows in fact!)
I show up on day one and ask where my studio is. It isn't built yet, because, my friend tells me, that they are building the houses for people to live in and it would be a real help if I could go swing a hammer with the rest of them. I remind him that I agreed to be part of his commune if I could be an artist, not a carpenter. He tells me how sorry he is for not having all the art stuff ready when I got there. Through guilt of looking like a selfish prick, I decide that my contract with my friend to be an artist in his commune isn't as important has my social experience of looking like a nice guy, so I pick up the hammer and do what I'm told, with the expectation that I will be "paid" by being allowed to be an artist.
After some time the houses are build. I go back to my friend and I ask him about my studio now and he says to me that they still cannot set aside the resources to build an artist studio, because the people in the commune have been allocated to make food, clothing, and repair maintain all the equipment that they need to survive. I say fine, I don't need a studio, just point me to the art supplies, I'll paint landscapes. He tells me that they haven't set aside resources for people to make art supplies and there is no plan by the central community members to set aside such people to make paintbrushes and easels and grow the right plants to make the right color paints, etc. I remind him that he promised. He is of course, sorry for whatever that is worth. He suggests that I make the stuff myself (or go out to the 'rest of the world' and 'buy' with 'evil' money the supplies I need). I agree and ask, what land can I use to grow my plants for the paints, he tells me that all the land is already allocated for food and necessary survival. I ask him how will I eat until I can make my plants, he says that I can't "freeload" off the labor of the rest of the people, that I have to earn my food by being fair and working in the community. I remind him again that I only joined the commune because I was promised to be a painter.
From this point forward the dilemma becomes a complex mess. Because I can't eat unless I agree to be a slave to something I don't want to participate in or other people will be forced to make me food while I go off and do my own thing. Neither of which is right, neither of which is fair.
It gets worse when you start to factor in artisans and service professionals in such a community. After all a guy who has been allocated resources to make silverware is using resources that could be used to make plowshares and tools. How too, does one figure out an equal share of something they do not earn or produce? If for example, I was able to make my own paints, canvas, and all, perhaps I could paint two paintings a year. But the guy making bread (our currency for simplicity sake) works in those ovens day in and day out 365 days a year. he makes himself bread and he makes me bread. We both still eat every day. His labor, it should be clear, is valueless in such a system. He is a slave to my sitting around six months at a time waiting to finish a painting. If I produce two things a year and he produces 730 things a year, but I get 365 of those things for my two things, my objects are more valuable. Thus, in economics: more expensive. Worse, is that he was forced to set the price, just by working and had no say in the outcome of the price he'd be willing to actually pay for one of my paintings.
Now once I produce one of these paintings, what happens to it? Do I get to sell it (barter) it away or does the community suddenly own it? If the community owns it and they hang it in the outhouse, how likely do think I'll be to want to continue to "work so hard" if the perceived value of the item is so low? If I can't chose my audience to whom will honor my work, why should I do it? If on the other hand, I am allowed to barter it away, then the guy who's been making my bread all year was basically my slave, who's purpose was to enrich me, because he labored and then I sold his labor for my own profit. -- Note: that both of those things are the system we live in now: we do not live in a free market. The owners of the market set immoral laws and enforce these laws by the immoral use of violence.
It is the owner of the means of production that takes on the responsibility for the profit of his work. In socialism the means of production is held by those that have no responsibility to profit, thus, failure in achieving a certain wheat harvest or cutting a number of planks into usable lumber, becomes meaningless. In my example above, the artist owns his own means of production and the breadmaker owns his, because each of them, without direct interference, sets the value of their work based on the interaction of other people. Other people set the price because they want (or don't want) the product in question.
The artist is not given any authority to go to the breadmaker and demand daily bread. He should be expected to earn it. If the Artist can't sell his art, he finds another profession. He owns the means of production. He does not have the power to force the bread maker to support his art. That is slavery.
In Communism, the means of production is not owned by the individual. It is owned by the people calling themselves the leaders. They set the value of things based on the resources they allocate. If they feel art is a meaningless waste of resources, then they do not allocate any resources to it. That simply.
In our fictional example, I, after some time of not being allowed to be an artist, would simply leave the commune and go off and live my life. But in the real world, when system convert themselves to socialists and communists, and by doing gain the authority over the means to production, they don't let me leave and do what I want. I either submit to working the factory instead of being an artist, or I die. Because at that point people themselves become the commodity for the means of production for the survival of the commune.
This is why one should always ask before they agree to anything: By doing this do I have to make someone property? Do I have to impose on someone's means of production? If the answer is yes then it should not be done.
Let's say that my friend comes to me and says that he and a few people are getting together to form a kind of commune. They plan on eliminating money. He tells me that he really wants me to join and tells me that I can be whatever I want in his new commune. I tell him I'll join if I can be an artist that paints with oil paints. He suggests that such would make him very happy because his new commune is going to need artists (more than he knows in fact!)
I show up on day one and ask where my studio is. It isn't built yet, because, my friend tells me, that they are building the houses for people to live in and it would be a real help if I could go swing a hammer with the rest of them. I remind him that I agreed to be part of his commune if I could be an artist, not a carpenter. He tells me how sorry he is for not having all the art stuff ready when I got there. Through guilt of looking like a selfish prick, I decide that my contract with my friend to be an artist in his commune isn't as important has my social experience of looking like a nice guy, so I pick up the hammer and do what I'm told, with the expectation that I will be "paid" by being allowed to be an artist.
After some time the houses are build. I go back to my friend and I ask him about my studio now and he says to me that they still cannot set aside the resources to build an artist studio, because the people in the commune have been allocated to make food, clothing, and repair maintain all the equipment that they need to survive. I say fine, I don't need a studio, just point me to the art supplies, I'll paint landscapes. He tells me that they haven't set aside resources for people to make art supplies and there is no plan by the central community members to set aside such people to make paintbrushes and easels and grow the right plants to make the right color paints, etc. I remind him that he promised. He is of course, sorry for whatever that is worth. He suggests that I make the stuff myself (or go out to the 'rest of the world' and 'buy' with 'evil' money the supplies I need). I agree and ask, what land can I use to grow my plants for the paints, he tells me that all the land is already allocated for food and necessary survival. I ask him how will I eat until I can make my plants, he says that I can't "freeload" off the labor of the rest of the people, that I have to earn my food by being fair and working in the community. I remind him again that I only joined the commune because I was promised to be a painter.
From this point forward the dilemma becomes a complex mess. Because I can't eat unless I agree to be a slave to something I don't want to participate in or other people will be forced to make me food while I go off and do my own thing. Neither of which is right, neither of which is fair.
It gets worse when you start to factor in artisans and service professionals in such a community. After all a guy who has been allocated resources to make silverware is using resources that could be used to make plowshares and tools. How too, does one figure out an equal share of something they do not earn or produce? If for example, I was able to make my own paints, canvas, and all, perhaps I could paint two paintings a year. But the guy making bread (our currency for simplicity sake) works in those ovens day in and day out 365 days a year. he makes himself bread and he makes me bread. We both still eat every day. His labor, it should be clear, is valueless in such a system. He is a slave to my sitting around six months at a time waiting to finish a painting. If I produce two things a year and he produces 730 things a year, but I get 365 of those things for my two things, my objects are more valuable. Thus, in economics: more expensive. Worse, is that he was forced to set the price, just by working and had no say in the outcome of the price he'd be willing to actually pay for one of my paintings.
Now once I produce one of these paintings, what happens to it? Do I get to sell it (barter) it away or does the community suddenly own it? If the community owns it and they hang it in the outhouse, how likely do think I'll be to want to continue to "work so hard" if the perceived value of the item is so low? If I can't chose my audience to whom will honor my work, why should I do it? If on the other hand, I am allowed to barter it away, then the guy who's been making my bread all year was basically my slave, who's purpose was to enrich me, because he labored and then I sold his labor for my own profit. -- Note: that both of those things are the system we live in now: we do not live in a free market. The owners of the market set immoral laws and enforce these laws by the immoral use of violence.
It is the owner of the means of production that takes on the responsibility for the profit of his work. In socialism the means of production is held by those that have no responsibility to profit, thus, failure in achieving a certain wheat harvest or cutting a number of planks into usable lumber, becomes meaningless. In my example above, the artist owns his own means of production and the breadmaker owns his, because each of them, without direct interference, sets the value of their work based on the interaction of other people. Other people set the price because they want (or don't want) the product in question.
The artist is not given any authority to go to the breadmaker and demand daily bread. He should be expected to earn it. If the Artist can't sell his art, he finds another profession. He owns the means of production. He does not have the power to force the bread maker to support his art. That is slavery.
In Communism, the means of production is not owned by the individual. It is owned by the people calling themselves the leaders. They set the value of things based on the resources they allocate. If they feel art is a meaningless waste of resources, then they do not allocate any resources to it. That simply.
In our fictional example, I, after some time of not being allowed to be an artist, would simply leave the commune and go off and live my life. But in the real world, when system convert themselves to socialists and communists, and by doing gain the authority over the means to production, they don't let me leave and do what I want. I either submit to working the factory instead of being an artist, or I die. Because at that point people themselves become the commodity for the means of production for the survival of the commune.
This is why one should always ask before they agree to anything: By doing this do I have to make someone property? Do I have to impose on someone's means of production? If the answer is yes then it should not be done.
Comments
Post a Comment