I think where I struggle with this conceptually is mapping it onto the US service economy.
We’ve largely moved away from “owning the means of production” translating to “who has the rights to the copper mines” and more to mean, “who owns big businesses.” And since anyone can start a business, and there is no meaningful limit to the number of businesses there are, it feels much more far reaching to say that there should be no “private ownership of businesses” than “someone shouldn’t have exclusive rights to all the copper.”
I’d also push back on “the workers” not being private ownership, unless you’re advocating for a model where any business is required to cut in all employees as part owners?
And I don’t know how you legislate running a business “for good” and not “for profit”? That line seems blurry at best, as you need profit to keep the lights on and keep your family fed. Maybe caps on the amount of profit that a business can make as a percentage of revenue? Idk, it seems impossible to make such a system that isn’t easy to game.
We’ve largely moved away from “owning the means of production” translating to “who has the rights to the copper mines” and more to mean, “who owns big businesses.”
Most often it’s about who owns the factories, but yeah, all of it comes into play. For example, there’s limited land to get resources, and how did people come to own it? (Check out What is Property? by Proudhon.)
And since anyone can start a business, and there is no meaningful limit to the number of businesses there are
Barriers of entry is the issue. Say you want to create a competitor to YouTube. You don’t just say the words and sign a document and have a competitor. No, you need massive datacenters, deals with ISPs, land, power, employees. That’s billions of dollars needed, and then you need to have people visit too, and how are you going to compete with Google for that?
This is similar for most industries. You want to make a car company? Same story. Sure, you can start a restaurant, but not much larger unless you’re already a billionaire or have some very good connections.
Even if you can effectively compete with existing companies, they have the connections and access to make it harder for you to fairly compete in the market. They’ll make sure companies don’t carry your product or do business with you, and they have the capital to undercut you and take a loss until you can’t remain solvent. This is what happens on Amazon constantly. Someine releases a product, Amazon copies it and sells it cheaper until the original seller can’t continue, then they raise the prices.
And I don’t know how you legislate running a business “for good” and not “for profit”?
Even under capitalism we do this. They’re called “not-for-profits.”
as you need profit to keep the lights on and keep your family fed.
No, you need revenue. Profit is income - expenses. If it’s neutral that isn’t profit. For example, everything after cost of production can go to employees. That leaves you no profit.
The idea is to create a system where people aren’t trying to maximize profit. You want everyone creating for the greater good. There are a lot if competing ideas on how to do this. Even if it won’t ever be perfect, neither is what we have now. Nothing will ever be perfect.
I think where I struggle with this conceptually is mapping it onto the US service economy.
We’ve largely moved away from “owning the means of production” translating to “who has the rights to the copper mines” and more to mean, “who owns big businesses.” And since anyone can start a business, and there is no meaningful limit to the number of businesses there are, it feels much more far reaching to say that there should be no “private ownership of businesses” than “someone shouldn’t have exclusive rights to all the copper.”
I’d also push back on “the workers” not being private ownership, unless you’re advocating for a model where any business is required to cut in all employees as part owners?
And I don’t know how you legislate running a business “for good” and not “for profit”? That line seems blurry at best, as you need profit to keep the lights on and keep your family fed. Maybe caps on the amount of profit that a business can make as a percentage of revenue? Idk, it seems impossible to make such a system that isn’t easy to game.
Most often it’s about who owns the factories, but yeah, all of it comes into play. For example, there’s limited land to get resources, and how did people come to own it? (Check out What is Property? by Proudhon.)
Barriers of entry is the issue. Say you want to create a competitor to YouTube. You don’t just say the words and sign a document and have a competitor. No, you need massive datacenters, deals with ISPs, land, power, employees. That’s billions of dollars needed, and then you need to have people visit too, and how are you going to compete with Google for that?
This is similar for most industries. You want to make a car company? Same story. Sure, you can start a restaurant, but not much larger unless you’re already a billionaire or have some very good connections.
Even if you can effectively compete with existing companies, they have the connections and access to make it harder for you to fairly compete in the market. They’ll make sure companies don’t carry your product or do business with you, and they have the capital to undercut you and take a loss until you can’t remain solvent. This is what happens on Amazon constantly. Someine releases a product, Amazon copies it and sells it cheaper until the original seller can’t continue, then they raise the prices.
Even under capitalism we do this. They’re called “not-for-profits.”
No, you need revenue. Profit is income - expenses. If it’s neutral that isn’t profit. For example, everything after cost of production can go to employees. That leaves you no profit.
The idea is to create a system where people aren’t trying to maximize profit. You want everyone creating for the greater good. There are a lot if competing ideas on how to do this. Even if it won’t ever be perfect, neither is what we have now. Nothing will ever be perfect.