7 ms·

Imagine if — on top of that - we let the undeserving rich invest their wealth in things such as: - owning media - lobbying the government - owning the means of

by LeonB 3y ago

Imagine if — on top of that - we let the undeserving rich invest their wealth in things such as: - owning media - lobbying the government - owning the means of production It could take that dire situation and make it drastically worse. I mean, in theory.

robertlagrant 3y ago
> owning media Who should own media? Private people, or the state? > lobbying the government If lobbying the government is effective, it's either because the lobbying was correcting a wrong, or the government is allowing itself to be corrupted. > owning the means of production The "means of production" was barely relevant when Marx found out what a factory was from his factory-owning mate. A plumber owns "the means of production" when he owns his own tools. It's far too low resolution a phrase to be useful, except for anyone who finds it useful to teach people to hate another group of people.
- LeonB 3y ago
  > Who should own media? Private people, or the state? I mean of course — who should own media.. we have precisely two choices, and no possibility to imagine anything else! What you’ve put forward is known as a false dichotomy. That is a situation where you present two options as if they are the only options. Oh wow — in your response Re government you have literally stated a dichotomy. Alright. I feel bad now. I have to let you know that there are more than two options (your preferred and a horrible alternative) in just about every situation in life. Please my friend - go out into the world and seek out the alternatives - they are infinite. This false dichotomy business is harmful to everyone around you. I agree that we should move beyond Marxist thought .. but I think we should be post Marxist not pre.
  - robertlagrant 3y ago
    Unless you're paid by the word, it'd be better to skip all that and state your third option.
    - vharuck 3y ago
      Media could be owned by the staff. That's what the Hell Gate website does. https://hellgatenyc.com/about-us https://hellgatenyc.com/about-us We could also restrict ownership by audience size. So any one person or non-media organization cannot own or control multiple media organizations if their total audience size is above X people. Audience size would be prorated for partial ownership or control (i.e., owning 1% of a newspaper that serves 100K people would count 1K people towards one's total). This is an off-the-cuff alternative, so assume the regulations would be written by actual lawyers who consider edge cases.
      - vxNsr 3y ago
        Everything you’ve proposed is the media being owned by the government with a single extra step.
      - robertlagrant 3y ago
        > Media could be owned by the staff Agree. That would be private people owning it, though.
        digging 3y ago
        Well, the state is also people, so state-owned is also private people owning it then. Either that, or you could acknowledge the dramatic material differences between workers owning their own output and a rich individual not-worker owning their output.
        robertlagrant 3y ago
        Er no, people don't own the state. People do own businesses.
        lcnPylGDnU4H9OF 3y ago
        > so state-owned is also private people owning it This is wrong by definition. There is an actual "true" dichotomy between public ownership and non-public ownership. Two criteria: - "jointly exhaustive": the two subsets contain all possible scenarios - "mutually exclusive": the two subsets do not share any possible scenarios These criteria are met with the subsets of "the state" (meaning "public") and "private people" (meaning "non-public").
  - lcnPylGDnU4H9OF 3y ago
    > Oh wow — in your response Re government you have literally stated a dichotomy. Alright. I feel bad now. I have to let you know that there are more than two options (your preferred and a horrible alternative) in just about every situation in life. Please my friend - go out into the world and seek out the alternatives - they are infinite. This false dichotomy business is harmful to everyone around you. > If lobbying the government is effective, it's either because the lobbying was correcting a wrong, or the government is allowing itself to be corrupted. This seems like "correcting a wrong" or "not correcting a wrong and therefore the government is allowing itself to be corrupted". The second part has an argument that effective lobbying which does not correct a wrong is necessarily government corruption. There seems to be a regular old dichotomy here (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dichotomy https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dichotomy). Not all dichotomies are false. But I also want to highlight a part of the comment: > Please my friend - go out into the world and seek out the alternatives - they are infinite. If these alternatives are so infinite, it should be easy to name one. That is something that is yet to be provided in this thread, seemingly despite your confidence that this dichotomy is false.
- shove 3y ago
  Marx was specifically talking about industrial production and made that pretty clear in his work. “It’s far too low resolution a phrase” when purposefully taken out of context. If “the means of production” applies to the factory owner and the plumber equally, I’d counter its not at all a useful phrase for “teaching people to hate another group of people” because those aren’t at all the same type of people.
  - LeonB 3y ago
    Agreed. I have friends that are plumbers and friends that own factories. Both plumbers and factory owners do indeed have opportunities to exploit people. But my plumber friend can only exploit one customer at a time, where as a factory owner multiplies that ability. Multiplication is a powerful operator.
    - robertlagrant 3y ago
      How does the plumber exploit people with his/her tool ownership?
      - badcppdev 3y ago
        The key word is that a plumber "can" exploit one customer at a time. A plumber can exploit a customer by charging an exorbitantly high rate for work. They can choose to exploit their position of power as a supplier of services where a customer has an urgent need. Exploitation is not charging a high rate for work. It is charging a higher rate when a customer is not in a position to shop around.
        robertlagrant 3y ago
        How does the plumber owning tools create that situation?
      - LeonB 3y ago
        They have the opportunity to exploit people through asymmetric knowledge. Any other questions?
- jncfhnb 3y ago
  > The "means of production" was barely relevant when Marx found out what a factory was from his factory-owning mate. A plumber owns "the means of production" when he owns his own tools. It's far too low resolution a phrase to be useful, except for anyone who finds it useful to teach people to hate another group of people. A plumber owns a fraction of the means of production so small it’s not worth mentioning. How much of the means of production is owned by megacorps? A sizeable amount. How much of the means of production is owned by singular entities in the context of local economies? Sometimes over 90%. At the end of the day if some guy owns a fabulous machine and will pay you a non living wage to press a button on it while he reaps the rewards you will grow resentful. Especially if the shittier prior machine required more skilled interactions and higher wages.
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]

by LeonB 3y ago

robertlagrant 3y ago

> owning media Who should own media? Private people, or the state? > lobbying the government If lobbying the government is effective, it's either because the lobbying was correcting a wrong, or the government is allowing itself to be corrupted. > owning the means of production The "means of production" was barely relevant when Marx found out what a factory was from his factory-owning mate. A plumber owns "the means of production" when he owns his own tools. It's far too low resolution a phrase to be useful, except for anyone who finds it useful to teach people to hate another group of people.

LeonB 3y ago
> Who should own media? Private people, or the state? I mean of course — who should own media.. we have precisely two choices, and no possibility to imagine anything else! What you’ve put forward is known as a false dichotomy. That is a situation where you present two options as if they are the only options. Oh wow — in your response Re government you have literally stated a dichotomy. Alright. I feel bad now. I have to let you know that there are more than two options (your preferred and a horrible alternative) in just about every situation in life. Please my friend - go out into the world and seek out the alternatives - they are infinite. This false dichotomy business is harmful to everyone around you. I agree that we should move beyond Marxist thought .. but I think we should be post Marxist not pre.
- robertlagrant 3y ago
  Unless you're paid by the word, it'd be better to skip all that and state your third option.
  - vharuck 3y ago
    Media could be owned by the staff. That's what the Hell Gate website does. https://hellgatenyc.com/about-us https://hellgatenyc.com/about-us We could also restrict ownership by audience size. So any one person or non-media organization cannot own or control multiple media organizations if their total audience size is above X people. Audience size would be prorated for partial ownership or control (i.e., owning 1% of a newspaper that serves 100K people would count 1K people towards one's total). This is an off-the-cuff alternative, so assume the regulations would be written by actual lawyers who consider edge cases.
    - vxNsr 3y ago
      Everything you’ve proposed is the media being owned by the government with a single extra step.
    - robertlagrant 3y ago
      > Media could be owned by the staff Agree. That would be private people owning it, though.
      - digging 3y ago
        Well, the state is also people, so state-owned is also private people owning it then. Either that, or you could acknowledge the dramatic material differences between workers owning their own output and a rich individual not-worker owning their output.
        robertlagrant 3y ago
        Er no, people don't own the state. People do own businesses.
        lcnPylGDnU4H9OF 3y ago
        > so state-owned is also private people owning it This is wrong by definition. There is an actual "true" dichotomy between public ownership and non-public ownership. Two criteria: - "jointly exhaustive": the two subsets contain all possible scenarios - "mutually exclusive": the two subsets do not share any possible scenarios These criteria are met with the subsets of "the state" (meaning "public") and "private people" (meaning "non-public").
- lcnPylGDnU4H9OF 3y ago
  > Oh wow — in your response Re government you have literally stated a dichotomy. Alright. I feel bad now. I have to let you know that there are more than two options (your preferred and a horrible alternative) in just about every situation in life. Please my friend - go out into the world and seek out the alternatives - they are infinite. This false dichotomy business is harmful to everyone around you. > If lobbying the government is effective, it's either because the lobbying was correcting a wrong, or the government is allowing itself to be corrupted. This seems like "correcting a wrong" or "not correcting a wrong and therefore the government is allowing itself to be corrupted". The second part has an argument that effective lobbying which does not correct a wrong is necessarily government corruption. There seems to be a regular old dichotomy here (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dichotomy https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dichotomy). Not all dichotomies are false. But I also want to highlight a part of the comment: > Please my friend - go out into the world and seek out the alternatives - they are infinite. If these alternatives are so infinite, it should be easy to name one. That is something that is yet to be provided in this thread, seemingly despite your confidence that this dichotomy is false.
shove 3y ago
Marx was specifically talking about industrial production and made that pretty clear in his work. “It’s far too low resolution a phrase” when purposefully taken out of context. If “the means of production” applies to the factory owner and the plumber equally, I’d counter its not at all a useful phrase for “teaching people to hate another group of people” because those aren’t at all the same type of people.
- LeonB 3y ago
  Agreed. I have friends that are plumbers and friends that own factories. Both plumbers and factory owners do indeed have opportunities to exploit people. But my plumber friend can only exploit one customer at a time, where as a factory owner multiplies that ability. Multiplication is a powerful operator.
  - robertlagrant 3y ago
    How does the plumber exploit people with his/her tool ownership?
    - badcppdev 3y ago
      The key word is that a plumber "can" exploit one customer at a time. A plumber can exploit a customer by charging an exorbitantly high rate for work. They can choose to exploit their position of power as a supplier of services where a customer has an urgent need. Exploitation is not charging a high rate for work. It is charging a higher rate when a customer is not in a position to shop around.
      - robertlagrant 3y ago
        How does the plumber owning tools create that situation?
    - LeonB 3y ago
      They have the opportunity to exploit people through asymmetric knowledge. Any other questions?
jncfhnb 3y ago
> The "means of production" was barely relevant when Marx found out what a factory was from his factory-owning mate. A plumber owns "the means of production" when he owns his own tools. It's far too low resolution a phrase to be useful, except for anyone who finds it useful to teach people to hate another group of people. A plumber owns a fraction of the means of production so small it’s not worth mentioning. How much of the means of production is owned by megacorps? A sizeable amount. How much of the means of production is owned by singular entities in the context of local economies? Sometimes over 90%. At the end of the day if some guy owns a fabulous machine and will pay you a non living wage to press a button on it while he reaps the rewards you will grow resentful. Especially if the shittier prior machine required more skilled interactions and higher wages.
deleted 3y ago
[deleted]