Howdy! I’m new here and was hoping someone might have some insight to a question I’ve been thinking about for a while:
If I saved up my money and bought a tractor, would it be permissible/ethical to charge others to use it when I didn’t need it?
This seems awfully similar to owning the means of production. What if I instead offered to plow their fields for them instead, driving the tractor myself and negotiating fair compensation in exchange?
Sorry if this is basic stuff I’m still learning. 🙏
If your question refers to it: Marxism is an analysis of the social structure of market economy. It doesn’t work as a guidebook for individual behaviour inside of market economy, but for collective emancipation from a social order that results in exploitation.
Doing so would mean decide collectively/democratically over the collaborative use of the means of production.
“I’m buying some means of production with my money” and “their fields” is a market economy situation.
You don’t go from caputalism to socialism by individually changing your personal economic behaviour, but by changing social order.
Thanks for your response! If I understand correctly, you’re saying the state / my community should collectively hold a vote to see if me leasing out the tractor is exploitative, and maybe prevent me from doing so or appropriate it for the collective benefit?
It was also my understanding that markets still exist under socialism in some level?
The point is not over your tractor, individually. If you were living under marxism, society would have decided “all [farming equipment, factories, whatever] are the property of the community and you cannot own them individually”. You couldn’t lease your tractor, because you couldn’t own the tractor to begin with.
Markets largely still exist in socialism we see today because capitalism is extremely pervasive. A socialist state currently is forced to behave like a capitalist entity to at least the outside world, or they will be taken advantage of by capitalists. Because of this, all socialists states today are internally capitalist with some social programs, as opposed to fully Marxists.
Yeah… another way to say it would be:
Giving things (especially means of production) the attribute of property, “being property of X”, is a contingent human decision. It’s ONE specific way of organizing the handling of things (tightly connected to the idea that the “owner” uses the given thing for his*her own benefit).
Another way of organizing things, aka mode of decision making regarding ressources (nature, labour, and its products), production, distribution would be having a king that tells everyone what to do. Another option would be democracy: “Oh dang, we got a tractor over here. Let’s see how we can use it best to fulfill the next important need”
That way you are right, your community (feat. You) would decide what to do with your tractor. Depending on how long capitalism would be gone at that time, people just might look at you a bit puzzled when you call it “yours”. You know, since the idea of you being given the power to decide over a tractor you didn’t build and can’t consume, is quite weird ;)
Thanks for your response! I’m imagining in my scenario, perhaps the tractor doesn’t exist until someone decides that one is desired and then a cooperative of fabricators builds one in exchange for what its workers consider to be fair compensation for their labour. As a farmer, perhaps I agree to exchange several years worth of grain for one of their tractors. As the individual who grew and harvested the grain personally, wouldn’t it make sense saying that I have a greater right to “own” the tractor over my peers who maybe chose to use their share of grain to purchase different things?
Perhaps they didn’t feel like a tractor was as necessary a use of resources as say a silo or mill would be? Or maybe collectively we agreed to purchase those things and it was with only the resources out of the whole I have been permitted to expend for personal use that I purchased the tractor with - others spending it on home improvements or a nicer car for example?
Thanks for your response! As I understand, even under marxism I still have the ability to use the product of my labour to buy things for my personal use? Like if I want to own a painting or piece of art, I can exchange the products of my labour with an artist for the products of their labour.
Regarding ownership, personal property still exists on some level, right? I don’t want other people wearing my clothes or sleeping in my bed for instance. I might not even want people driving my personal car if it’s something that I collected, built, or restored myself.
Indeed. Marx is actually very careful in distinguishing personal property (your toothbrush, your bed) from the means of production (a tractor, a lathe, a factory). If it were a society where it’s needed to have a car then it would probably be your own, but it’d be better for everyone if the public infrastructure (that belongs to the community) made it so cars aren’t a requirement.
Hey man, I understand the confusion and would like to correct some notions. Particularly with some comments here conflating socialism with other ideas.
Socialism is simply workers controlling industry. This may mean many things including each business being controlled by it’s individual workers, all industry being collectively owned by society as a whole, or other similar ideas. Personally I believe in the former. As long as the people working in a business control said business this is socialism
What if that industry is the rental of tractors? Well, then all workers involved in this business must control the business. If you are the sole worker, the only one operating this business, then you have sole control.
If you were to, let’s say, buy 10 tractors and bring on a receptionist to manage calls and schedule tractor usage well then that receptionist would also own, and control, this business as well. Same goes as it grows. Just as a person selling wheat to a grain mill doesn’t need to hold any ownership over the grain mill nor the mill over the farm you selling your tractors usage doesn’t need those using it to own your tracker.
Socialism does not necessitate the collective ownership of property nor does it mean industrial rental isn’t an option. It only necessitates that the workers control industry. This may mean that each individual business operates as it’s own entity, controlled by it’s individual workers.
Workers seizing the means of production can mean does not mean, necessarily, society owning it collectively nor does It mean all who use it may have ownership.
I feel that socialism and communism often get conflated. Private ownership of property and the means of production is allowed under socialism, just not ownership over industry. You can personally own and rent out a tractor but you cannot personally own a tractor rental company. Under communism, all is owned collectively
Now, the morals of renting are another thing altogether and entirely detached from socialism. Personally, I think it mostly immoral. Under your circumstance I see no issue selling excess time with a tool you use for the majority of the time. The issue comes when a single renter start to pay entirely for maintenance with excess profits. In my opinion, this should grant them partial ownership. Once more though this is detached from socialism entirely
Thanks for the comment! I agree that owning ten tractors that I don’t personally use VS leasing out my one personal vehicle in the off season feels different, but I’m not exactly clear on where the line is drawn and by what standards it is.
Isn’t me being the sole person who can decide who can and can’t lease my equipment and at what rate / how much compensation I expect to receive for the privilege of doing so kind of make me a boss already, even if I don’t formally employ anyone in a business?
I think we both understand that some form of compensation is fair, as use of the equipment will gradually degrade it’s quality, presents an inconvenience to me (no option to use it on the days it’s gone), and an increased risk of the tractor becoming inoperable (catching fire, catastrophic failure, falling off a cliff, ect…) all of which as the sole owner of the equipment I am expected to absorb the cost of.
I’m also sure that whomever I’m leasing the equipment out to understands what fair compensation is and won’t likely take me up on an offer if I ask for too much. (Half of whatever is harvested with my machine! Mwahaha!)
But I can also see a case where perhaps the equipment is so much more efficient that over time, choosing not to lease from me will result in me being four or five times more productive than you are, creating a big resource disparity between us and giving me extra bargaining power over you.
To answer the “are you a boss” question the answer is kinda, but yhat’s the idea of socialism. Everyones a boss. The idea is against non-workers owning the industry, and ensures workers have control over it. If you see an issue with your suggested practice I understand but I’ll clarify it’ not anti-socialist. At your scale, with the other options available, I can only see your option being a better one.
I think you see the possible issues inherent in renting as well as the coercion in it. There’s certainly ways in which one can exploit the relationship. As long as you’re not doing so however there’s no moral flaw. In fact, on an environmental note you’re likely helping. If you’re undercutting the massive industry and treat those who rent from you well you’re doing them a kindness.
Of course, one can do evil here, but understanding that and actively making effort not to do so is a good place to be in. All economic activity can cause harm no matter the system. As a socialist, I believe that when more people with a stake in the work have control over industry the outcome is better
Marxism is a materialist worldview, not a moral one. I could give my personal opinion, but Marxism can never answer a question that begins with “Is it moral/ethical/permissible to…?”
A tractor is a means of production. Owning a tractor would make you a member of the Petite Bourgeoisie - a person who owns their own means of production, but does not own enough to get by without also working, typically self-employed. Leasing the tractor to others doesn’t change this, but it is an example of Rentierism - something that will not exist under Communism. If you owned a thousand tractors, and could live comfortably off of the rent you charged others to use them, that would make you a Capitalist, a member of the Bourgeoisie.
Different people will have different thresholds over whether they think some Rentierism is acceptable. I believe it is fine as long as you remain small-scale and have affordable prices. Others may disagree, believing that either all Rentierism is acceptable until Socialism is achieved or that Rentierism is never acceptable. Marxism cannot give an answer to a moral question, and so the answer is personal.
There are alternatives to owning a tractor yourself. Finding a group of people who would use the tractor is feasible. Setup a democratic system to control the use of the tractor and a system of dues to ensure it is well maintained. Basically treat the tractor as a commons that people can exploit in an ethical manner.
This kind of system can be expanded to all means of production in theory. All capital treated as commons for workers to use.
This has the added benefit of being feasible within the current system, makes it easier for workers to survive, and acting as material evidence for alternative economic systems.
Thanks for the response! I guess what I’m wondering is if owning the tractor and leasing it out could still exist alongside collective ownership?
If I already have the means of purchasing the tractor for myself, I might not want to enter into a cooperative agreement with others and deal with the overhead that comes with it - especially if it were a scenario where I originally purchased it solely as a tool for myself. Let’s say it were a simple tool like a scythe, collective ownership might seem like too much hassle when it would be more convenient if everyone just had their own.
Naturally there is a breaking point where collective ownership becomes too cumbersome in relation to what is shared, for example imagine your lightbulbs go to your neighbor when you are asleep or at work. That’s just not worth the bother, same for basic tools like a spade or hammer. Collective ownership makes sense for everything an average person cannot purchase or fully utilize on their own, like machinery that sits in a barn 2/3 of the time.
If I understand correctly, society would democratically decide that lightbulbs are approved for private ownership but that tractors would not be?
It doesnt necessarily mean direct democracy on every miniscule detail of societal organization, there would be - as is now - a bunch of well versed administrators, scientists, economists, ideologists and so forth working out the most practical and efficient way to do things.
Either way I’m not sure why it’s anyone else’s business whether or not I simply own the thing. If I’m the only one who uses it, it’s not harming anyone else.
If I don’t feel like ploughing the fields by hand, shouldn’t it be my decision to invest my labour into something that will make my life easier, regardless of what others think?
The basic idea of shared means is that if you let someone privately own the means you deprive everyone else of that resource, unless you pay them to use the means, and then you are back to private ownership.
You are also creating an incentive not to share your tilling machine freely, because you’re now in debt and if you let your neighbors use it for free, why is that fair if you paid for it? Might as well charge them for it, and if youre smart you start lobbying against the others buying a communal machine, because then nobody would pay to loan out yours any more.
Instead the tilling machine is paid for by all local farmers together, meaning nobody has to go in debt or pay for using it. Who gets to use it and when is just a matter of scheduling, and if wait times are too long you buy another together.
To me, it sounds like you are describing a situation where because you have some money (to buy a tractor) and other people don’t, you gain access to some of the human labor of your neighbors.
That is somewhat correct. It may not necessarily be the case that the tractor is impossibly out of reach of others. It’s possible that everyone could afford a tractor but did not deem it necessary to make the purchase at the time that I did, spending the money on other equipment instead, like a mill for instance.
It could be that everyone got different tools. It could be that some frittered their resources away like a grasshopper to your virtuous ant. It could be you were just lucky, a windfall inheritance.
The actual history of primitive accumulation is a lot darker.
But however you got that John Deere, should it entitle you to the physical labor of other people? Is that the kind of relationship you want with your neighbors?
Is not the tractor itself is the product of labour? Someone put in the work to build it, and I compensated them with the product of my own labour. I don’t think the people who constructed the tractor were entitled to my labor any more than someone who compensates me for tilling their field is.
Oh I like the way your are thinking…
So you labor, make something, exchange that for money and then buy the tractor. The tractor making people get your money in exchange for their tractor constructing labor. In this regard folks are just exchanging the product of their own labor.
But if you start renting the tractor out is that the same? In some sense the tractor is a substitute for the product of your effort (you traded grain for money for tractor) so if you were to trade the tractor for, say beer, its still just a swap. But if you are renting the tractor, you get something from the renters but you still have the whole tractor back at the end. You got something from them just for having had ownership of the tractor.
If I saved up my money and bought a tractor
What if I instead offered to plow their fields for them instead
You assume it is necessary to use money to buy a tractor for yourself, you assume “their fields” are owned by “them.” What if the state provided you with a tractor and the land? Or even if money were involved, what if the state provided you with the money to buy the tractor and the land?
There would be laws to allow you to hire other people to use the tractor and farm the land, but by law, the surplus of their labor (whatever they planted, farm, sell at market) would belong to them, likewise the surplus of your own labor would belong to you. You could use the surplus (money, goods, what have you) to trade with anyone else.
Thanks your response! I understand that distributed ownership and cooperatives exist as an option, even in existing capitalist societies. What I do wonder about is to what extent private ownership would still be permitted to exist?
Maybe in my scenario nobody else in the community thought the tractor was a priority investment at the time the purchase was made. Or perhaps instead of just me owning the tractor, it’s instead owned by my cooperative and we’re wondering if we can lease it out to other cooperatives?
What I do wonder about is to what extent private ownership would still be permitted to exist?
Yeah, I think that is debatable and there are probably a few solutions, since we are only talking about hypothetical society. Just thinking out loud myself now: your example of leasing the tractor to other collectives could be done using money but there would have to be strict regulations to ensure that your lease price was fair, and maybe you would not be to charge interest, or only enough interest to cover the risk of losing the tractor. Or it could all just be done much more informally on a “to each their need” basis and the honor system, and you could maybe take them to court for a new one if they destroyed it or something.
I wish I knew more about how it worked in countries like Vietnam or Cuba, they probably have it all worked out.
Socialism is not a guide on moral behavior under Capitalism, but an argument that organizing along Socialist lines is better for Humanity than Capitalist lines.
