[FRIAM] means of production take 2

[Steven A Smith]

Glen -

Thanks for circling around on this one.   I had not forgotten the frayed
thread I left with you on this, but as you suggest, might be lacking the
tools/perspective to explain.  I take this to mean that your questions
are requiring me to think deeper/differently.

1) I *don't* think I am using the term "ownership" in the sense of "to
own someone" or "pwn", though I suspect others (this may be
generational) might.

2) I struggle with the distinction between a very simple, vernacular
sense of "ownership" of physical objects and perhaps (small regions) of
real property and a *larger* sense as we find it in modern culture,
particularly in the context of capitalism as it has emerged in the
industrial (and beyond) period.

3) "means of production", in my lexicon is derived from the social/labor
movements that arose in response to the capitalism as developed around
industrialization.  I believe it's frailty is derived from the question
of "a commons".   When capital "owns" the "means of production", it
means that through the leverage of it's technology it has an "unfair"
advantage in exploiting the commons.  In fact, one might note that a
commons only remains viable as a commons if it is NOT exploited.  

Your example of Hearst is well taken...  but framed by "the commons",
whether it is spectrum (FCC) or right-of-way (cable/phone/???
franchises) a key point is that when a single (or small-number of)
entity takes effective control of said commons, there is a risk which
suggests responsibilities which may or may not be accounted for.

- Steve


On 11/19/19 9:24 AM, glen∈ℂ wrote:
> To contribute to my spam score, I'll try again to suss out what is
> meant by owning the means of production. Here it is again:
>
> The collapse of the information ecosystem poses profound risks for
> humanity
> https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2019/nov/19/the-collapse-of-the-information-ecosystem-poses-profound-risks-for-humanity
>
>
>> William Randolph Hearst owned the means of production and was free to
>> publish made up stories to sell papers and stoke the Spanish-American
>> war. Today, everyone is free to be their own propagandist.
>
> Is this a proper use of the concept of "ownership of the means of
> production"? I know I'm simple-minded. But while it's clear to me what
> it means to own, say, a screwdriver, it's not at all clear to me what
> it means to *own* the process/tools by which one produces propaganda.
> It reminds me of being "owned" (or "pwned") in some trashtalk context
> like before a boxing match or an argument on 4chan. It's a stretched,
> poetically licensed, sense of ownership and actually means domination
> or humiliation, not at all like owning a hammer or printing press.
>
> But this concept of pwning does seem closer to the sense I was getting
> from both Marcus' and Steve's explanations, that seemed to target
> exploitation, asymmetric power, or some sort of inappropriate hoarding
> or market monopoly. If so, I would maintain my skepticism that using
> the words "ownership" and "production" is *conflating* things that
> could be better analyzed in another way. I just don't know what way
> that is.
>
> But thanks to y'all for changing my mind. The phrase no longer
> irritates me now that I have a sense that those using it are simply
> trying to describe something they are ill-equipped to describe.
>
>
> ============================================================
> FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
> Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
> to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
> archives back to 2003: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/
> FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove