27. Confusion Over Capital and Ownership

Confusion Over Capital and Ownership
Bob Komives
::

During the Cold War which pitted U. S. America and its capitalist allies against the Soviet Union and its communist allies, capitalists confused economic communism with totalitarianism, egalitarianism, and atheism. Communists confused economic capitalism with colonialism, elitism, and self-righteous exploitation. Each group confused itself with values such as freedom, hope, and progress. Both relied, in part, on the classic definition that makes socialism the opposite of capitalism.

According to this classic definition, under socialism society should own the means of production (that is capital); under capitalism, private individuals and companies should own the means of production. Means of production usually include resources such as fuel, minerals, and lumber, as well as key industries that process and transport these resources. The definitions seem simple and intuitive, but only if we ignore some obvious questions.

How about eyesight and the opposable thumb? Where would most human production be without them?

How about the mind, the body, libraries, air, organization, and rights-of-way across space we do not own? We cannot produce without them.

We cannot produce without many forms of knowledge found in biology, brain, and artifact. Necessary resources get ignored in lists of means of production. Society cannot own mind or eyesight. Yet, to practice socialism under the classic definition, it must. For society to be truly capitalistic, private enterprise must own my body and our air.

Knowledge is our means of production.
Woven into nature, ourselves, and our creations,
knowledge converts energy of the universe
into nature's wealth,
our wealth.
Much knowledge cannot be grasped
or held by monopoly,
be it public,
be it private.
Yes, socialism and capitalism differ.
No, we cannot have one without the other.
Our "means of production" is nothing less
than the knowledge which helps us maintain our species —to survive.
Art and government belong in the lists of means.
What do we say in saying:
own them?
socialize them?
capitalize them?
We say only confusion.

||

We should not mistake capital in an ephemeral industry for fundamental means of wealth production in our biosphere, species, and society. The petroleum industry combines petroleum (the energy knowledge it contains) with some capital (knowledge of how to find and process the petroleum). In a socialist country, government should operate this industry; under capitalism, a private company should. However, neither government nor private company can hope to take total ownership of our knowledge of how to use petroleum, including cruising downtown on Saturday night, beauty treatments, ... , pyrotechnics. Without society's use-knowledge, the petroleum industry produces no wealth. Humankind had wealth before the petroleum industry came into existence, and it should have more wealth after the industry fades in importance. A change in human knowledge made petroleum part of wealth. Further changes in knowledge can reduce its importance long before we exhaust the supply.

In this dynamic world we often raise questions as to who has and who should have the knowledge and the tools for change. The answers vary and may often confuse. Yet, fixed commitments to the traditional dichotomy between socialism and capitalism are worse. They compound confusion by pretending it does not exist.

:: Bob Komives, Fort Collins © 2006 :: Plum Local IV :: 27. Confusion Over Capital and Ownership ::
With attribution these words may be freely shared, but permission
is required if quoted in an item for sale or rent

::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::