Glen - Ok... I think I can let it all sit... and second your instinct *against* the use of the noun-phrase "means of production"... I am very sympathetic to your reading of the use of the phrase as indicating "they have lost the game". It feels to me as if it *does* admit to *wanting* to play the game of Capital/Labor, just not wanting to accept the stacking of the deck that comes with it.
I only adopted it into my normal discourse because it does seem so prevalent among those I otherwise tend to by sympathetic with. While I did hold a "day job" at a National Laboratory for the bulk of my career, I was never of the mindset of employees and jobs and Capital and Labor. While I might have resented many policies and practices of UC (the prime contractor) and DOE (prime funder) and myriad petty internal politics, I never felt the strong sense that I was "owed" anything, or that it was anybody else's responsibility to keep *my job* alive and well... if I didn't like how things worked, I could always leave! Of course, like many/most of us here, my education and professional embedding gave me that option, I understand that many in more typical "company towns" don't have that option, and the deal is different for them. I did finally , but only after a pretty good long run. I should have left a few years earlier (when Bechtel took over) at least on principle, but it took a little more incentive and time for me to shake off my "golden shackles". My long explanation of "means of production", and the basis of it's validity/etc. is somewhat ideosyncratic to me personally... what I've described is how *I* have tried to come to terms with it... not quite how I perceive it to be used in the larger (or any specific) culture, nor do I suggest it be *your* way of coming to terms with it. That said, by all means, listen and avoid premature binding as always! I'm reading Dave's paper on "Patterns of Humanity" and while I have a few beefs with it, he lays out a pretty interesting way of thinking about the intrinsic problems of our extant socioeconomic modes. I'll probably be referencing some of that work in SubThread3... - Steve On 11/26/19 11:44 AM, uǝlƃ ☣ wrote: > OK. So, moving on from the basic idea that "means of production" is used as a > hook for this fundamental issue of ingrained vs. contrived claims, you've > refined that into this *game theoretic* language about asymmetric access to > pools of resources. I guess it does smack True that the people I've heard use > the phrase "means of production" tend to have some sort of chip on their > shoulder ... some beef they want to express ... like they've lost the game > and are using the phrase morally or ethically to express the asymmetry. > > But it's not clear to me that this way of thinking is useful, at least not to > me. I appreciate you're laying it out. But it's not necessary for leveraging > a dialog with people who use the phrase. I.e. what I need is simply some > grounding so that I don't just laugh off or miss some important point they > might be making. And the core distinction you've made (ingrained vs. > contrived) is solid, which is not to say I agree or disagree, only that it > helps me be better at listening. In fact, going any further, might inhibit me > from listening to the phrase-user with empathy. I might preemptively assume I > know what they mean before asking them. So, I don't want to charge into the > gaming the commons extent, at least not in this conversation. > > Thanks very much! > > On 11/25/19 2:16 PM, Steven A Smith wrote: >> Glen - >> >> After lettin ghtis sit a while and engaging in Dave's take3 subthread, I >> am more ready to respond. >> >>> what I'm trying to do is work out why some people can use the phrase >>> "ownership of the means of production" with a straight face. 8^) >> I saw that in your original response but didn't recognize that to be the >> core of your questions, though I think I do see it now. Part of that is >> that I also find the phrase something of an oxymoron in the world I >> *choose to live in* but sadly a near truism in the culture of hypermanic >> capitalism that we *DO*??? (or many choose to) live in. >>> What you lay out below worked. I did *not* grok that the key >>> difference you see is one of ingrained vs. contrived senses of >>> ownership. I think we could have an interesting discussion down into >>> that. But it's definitely not what I *thought* we were talking about. >>> I'd like to tie the 2 topics together more explicitly than you do below. >>> >>> To be clear, the 2 topics are: 1) what do people (e.g. you) mean when >>> they use the phrase "means of production" and 2) ingrained vs. >>> contrived senses of ownership. It's tempting to dive down into the >>> mechanisms of something being ingrained vs. contrived. But I don't >>> think that dive pulls much weight in relation to question (1). >>> Whatever lurks at the depth of the distinction, maybe we can just >>> allow that there is a distinction and stay "up here" for a minute? >>> Perhaps you're suggesting that people who use the phrase "ownership of >>> the means of production" are trying to make that distinction between >>> an ingrained vs. a contrived ownership claim. >> I would say that not only are they trying to make that *distinction* but >> are in fact trying to impose what I am calling "contrived" to be >> "ingrained" and perhaps dismissing "ingrained" almost entirely, or >> treating it somewhat as a quaint anachronism. The real estate agents, >> title companies, tax agents, bankers, foreclosure agents, and Sheriffs >> who create and exercise the ambiguity of ownership of one's own "home" >> are an example. The myth of home ownership (in this context) as part >> of the American (first world?) one's own home, crossed with the myth of >> "a man's house is his castle" and juxtaposed with "home is where the >> heart is" all jangle hard against one another if taken seriously. I >> feel that I "own" the silver amalgam fittings and gold crowns in my >> mouth nearly as "intrinsically" as I do the teeth they are attached to. >> If I were in a Nazi death camp, I suppose those who operated it might >> not care much about that distinction. They own my teeth (in your sense >> of "ability to destroy") as surely as the gold and silver married to >> them. What I *might* still own is my sense of dignity (I happen to have >> just re-read "One Day in the Life of Ivan Denisovich" - set in a >> Stalinist Gulag, but still pretty daunting). >> >> .. >> >> <deleted protracted tangential argument on the contrast in arguments >> around "right to bear arms" and "freedom of choice"> >> >> ... >> >>> It would make sense to me to identify people who use that phrase as >>> accusing others of conflating ingrained "rights" vs contrived >>> "rights". E.g. if only socialists used the phrase as accusations that >>> the "ownership of the means of production" is contrived and not >>> ingrained (or "natural"). I.e. the "means of production" should be >>> collectively shared, not privately owned. Whereas a capitalist might >>> counter-claim that allowing for a more ingrained (or "intuitive"), >>> expansive extent of ownership fosters things like innovation, and >>> accuses socialists of defusing one's motivations (ingrained sense of >>> ownership) into the collective. So each side is arguing about where to >>> draw the line between ingrained vs. contrived. >>> >>> Is *that* your sense of how people use the phrase(s)? >> I think that is very close, if not spot on, and provides the foundation >> for the stronger sense in which I was trying to delineate different >> modes of ownership". >> >> Elaborating what I think is implied in what you said here: >> >> Using the language of Socialist/Capitalist (in their stronger senses), I >> agree that the former might believe that by virtue of the fact that some >> specific "means of production" are tapping in an imbalanced way into >> some kind of "commons", that to allow private/individual (vs >> communal/collective) control over that "means of production" gives the >> owner unequal access to the shared resource in "the commons". By >> extension, this "means of production" might should become part of the >> commons in their mind. >> >> A Capitalist may want to deny the very idea of "a commons" and believe >> that all unowned resources are available for appropriation (esp. by >> them). For the longest time, bodies of water, grazing land, forests, >> veins of minerals were pretty much treated that way. Possession was >> 100% of "the law". Ownership of some conserved "means of production" is >> an even better lever with which to appropriate... if you dam the river >> and put in a water mill, if you set up a sawmill operation big enough to >> clear a mountainside, or bring in big enough drills/pumps to empty an >> aquifer or a oil deposit, then even if you don't claim to own the >> water-head, the forest, the aquifer, you have established the ability to >> appropriate it (somewhat) to the exclusion of others. >> >> In the struggle between labor/capital in the industrial age - Labor, as >> you point out is to Capital, just another commodity to be virtually >> "owned", "traded", and even "destroyed" in some sense. Labor becomes >> part of the "means of production". Labor Unions flip that around (to >> some extent) by collectivizing Labor into a presumed CoOp (though many >> Union members or students of criminal activity around Labor Unions might >> argue that is also an illusion), the individuals making up the Labor >> have their own labor potential returned to themselves (though now >> collectivized). "Right to Work" laws speak in the language of >> returning/leaving those rights in the individual but it appears this is >> almost exclusively a storyline and misdirection by Capital to undermine >> Unions to maintain their ability to exploit the labor of Labor at-will. >> This battle, I would claim, has squeezed out everything but the thinnest >> of illusions than an individual might "own" their own labor (potential). >> >> I continue to fail to match you in conciseness and honor your >> forbearance in tracing out some of my more convoluted responses and >> distilling some aspect of their essence for continued remastication. >> ============================================================ FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com archives back to 2003: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/ FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove
