hi! I was discussing with a few different people about how the american working class relates to the means of production in the context of imperialism
so my setup is that in the context of imperialism, production of people’s needs mainly happens outside of america, and it seems that americans’ primary source of wealth and well-being comes from those superprofits
so then americans as a whole seem to have power in maintaining this system, from protecting it via participating in the military, working in jobs that manage this imperial system (e.g. finance, defense, etc.), selecting the american candidates that pursue their favorite imperialist policies (i.e the policies that give them a larger share of the super profits). in turn, the domestic capitalists in america need the support of the americans, so they and the americans come to an agreement on how to divide the superprofits from the factories abroad among them
so, in the broader sense of imperialism, it seems to me that american capitalists and the group of average americans share ownership in the means of production. what are everyone’s thoughts?
(I edited the post to make the context clearer, originally I had asked an abstract question about ownership that didn’t get at the imperialism context)
If you want a deeper understanding of what means of production mean, first you need to understand what is capital. Capital is a process, where money is transformed into commodities (hiring people, buying machines, software licenses, inputs, services and then producing the commodities that are going to be sold), where these commodities are sold and transformed into money again. So, when we say we take control of the means of production is actually taking control over this process.
Let’s get to the most obvious example, which is a factory. A cookie factory needs machines and inputs (flour, sugar, butter, baking soda) in order to make cookies. But this is not all for this process to take place. This factory needs financial assets such as savings and a working capital to buy the inputs. In order for the factory to operate, it also needs a lease of the terrain it operates. This factory also needs people, both to produce and store the cookies (the productive workers), but also dedicated people to manage, to hire, to secure the factory, to assess quality, to sell and market the cookies, etc (the unproductive workers). So taking ownership of the means of production mean owning all physical and intangible assets and stabilishing a system to manage all these workers. All of those are part of what it takes to own the means of production.
Why is this important? Because means of production aren’t just physical objects, they are all the means of producing and re-producing the circuit of capital.
Now going to the less obvious example. Let’s say we have Uber, which not only has its employees (developers, product managers, marketing etc), but also drivers who aren’t directly employed by Uber, as well as their vehicles. So the circuit of capital involves all these actors.
There are other actors involved in this circuit, since many drivers take loans to buy their cars, or may even rent them, so owning those actors (banks and financial institutions) are also an important part of this process.
So owning the means of production is creating a system where not only the Uber workers own the assets, but also where the drivers participate in the decision making. And this whole circuit also depend on third actors (financial institutions) which are vital for borrowing and financing the assets involved in the operation of Uber.
So, to answer the question, owning the means of production is stablishing a system that organizes these many levels of production and distribution. This is why in the USSR we had the GOSPLAN and other institutions to intermediate the production process. In Yugoslavia we had cooperatives and state-owned companies that operated in a competitive market. In China, we have a system where the state plans the economy and controls access to credit and financial instruments that are necessary to carry out those plans, control some key state-owned companies in critical areas, but maintains a market economy similar to what we have in capitalist countries.
one guy own material for product and the machine and the other stuff worker need to make product. this is bad. workers need to collectively own the material and the stuff.
in america, worker dont own means of production
guy who own all mean of production is bad. brainwash america people. america people dont even imagine they could own the means of production.
the scenario you described is social democracy. america so capitalist, there is not even social democracy.
worker in america cant negociate to get benefit. they dont have healthcare, if they have a booboo they dont have money for healthcare which is human right. they dont have secure housing, many american people have no home
furthermore, america built on slavery and racism. the USA technically still have slavery. they put drug in black community. black people get addicted. they send black worker to jail because he does drug. black worker now is in slavery. you dont means of production when you are slave, you are owned if you are slave.
what aspect are you struggling with specifically? ownership is almost always used in the colloquial sense: ability to decide what happens to a certain object. so owning the means of production would be (for example) the ability to decide what happens to a factory, to whom the products of the factory go to, how the profits of the factory are distributed.
ah hmmm, maybe I should’ve asked the context of the question directly 😅 (I’ll also edit the main post with context). I was confused how the american working class relates to the means of production. so my setup is that in the context of imperialism, the production of people’s needs mainly happens outside of america, and it seems that americans’ primary source of wealth and well-being comes from those superprofits
so then americans as a whole seem to have power in maintaining this system, from protecting it via participating in the military, working in jobs that manage this imperial system (e.g. finance, defense, etc.), selecting the american candidates that pursue their favorite imperialist policies (i.e the policies that give them a larger share of the super profits). in turn, the domestic capitalists in america need the support of the americans, so they and the americans come to an agreement on how to divide the superprofits from the factories abroad among them
so, in the broader sense of imperialism, it seems to me that american capitalists and the group of average americans share ownership in the means of production, in a primary sense. but is there something wrong in this reasoning?
To put it very simply, Statesian workers do not share ownership of the MoP, but they recieve a share of the spoils from the class that does own the MoP as bribes.
this is how i would describe it too
To add to this, I think there are some assumptions in this reasoning that are worth addressing.
so then americans as a whole seem to have power in maintaining this system, from protecting it via participating in the military, working in jobs that manage this imperial system (e.g. finance, defense, etc.), selecting the american candidates that pursue their favorite imperialist policies (i.e the policies that give them a larger share of the super profits)
This is essentially how the system functions, but it presupposes more agency on behalf of the Statsian workers than exists in practicable reality. For example, if one is selecting one imperalist over another in an election, it’s worth noting the vote for imperialism is fully baked in.
Similarly:
in turn, the domestic capitalists in america need the support of the americans, so they and the americans come to an agreement on how to divide the superprofits from the factories abroad among them
It might be literally true that the domestic capitalists need the support of the Statesian workers, but it depends on what we mean by “support.” At present the Statesian workers do not have any viable organized resistance to provide any actionable counterbalance. The support is implicitly baked into the system as is, and of course the bribes, propaganda, systemic degradation of any meaningful angency, etc., solidify this. The Statesian workers have no real say in how the spoils are divided; they simply take what they can get at best.
