This is one very important part of a larger issue about property and ownership.

It has been written that under communism, the people own the means of production - generally under ‘state’ ownership - all things being held in common controlled by the people’s government for the good of the people. And it’s a common topic under socialism and economics in general. It gives rise to questions such as how that ownership is divided, managed, controlled, and the resulting output distributed? It’s a problem every nation faces once it acknowledges the existence of personal private property, from China to Australia, the USA to Sweden, Saudi Arabia to Brunei.

I’ll leave the topics of property being theft, and the different views on property sharing between communism, feudalism, capitalism, and indeed Christianity, aside for others days. Today CK will just contribute two pennies worth on one particular aspect of the problem that has always challenged him. What does ‘the means of production’ mean?

CK’s no communist, but he does and I do understand economics. CK may be my pen name and sometimes alter-ego, but in this we are entirely identical.

It is perfectly possible to make a very reasonable case for the idea that some things should not be left completely in the hands of private enterprise. Certain resources, infrastructure, etc. can indeed be described as ‘the means to production’, and probably should be state controlled on behalf of ‘all the people’. While it is quite possible to refute the ‘all property is theft’ arguments and maintain a case for private property ownership, the arguments why not all things and wealth should be owned and controlled by private persons or enterprises are entirely convincing. Private wealth tends to concentrate into monopolies and it is certainly not reasonable to have all fresh water controlled by a few individuals. Watch A Quantum Of Solace by all means.

So CK can certainly argue convincingly that ‘the means to production’ should not be entirely owned and controlled by private people and enterprise, except that his argument comes unstuck one tricky point:

What are ‘the means to production?’

Are we talking about natural resources, including coal deposits and water? Are we talking about infrastructure such as roads, ports and airports? Are we talking air, rain, sewage, radio spectrum, and land? Are we talking railroads and electricity grids?

One can certainly make a case for doing so.

What about schools, hospitals, universities, libraries, power generators, and telephone networks?

What about smart phones, laptop computers, the internet, wi-fi modems, vehicles, cameras, TV’s?

iPods, cookers, fridges, hard hats, work boots, overalls, glasses, chairs, beds, sheets?

Clothing, underwear, toothbrushes, dentures, hearing aids, coffee mugs, wedding rings, contact lenses?

Where, if anywhere, does one draw the line between what is a ‘means of production’, and what is purely a personal use item?

In a nation with zero private property it is clear that the government owns everything, including ‘the means of production.’ In such a society the problem of defining this category disappears. The only societies that have ever been this absolutely free of the concept of personal property are artificial communities, such as monastic communities, or primitive communities - stone age communities - recent versions of which existed in Australian Aboriginals, Papua New Guinea tribes, etc. One reason it’s not much of a problem for primitive societies is because they don’t have much wealth - period / full stop. Primitive societies don’t have much wealth because primitive societies don’t generate much wealth. And this has commonly been the problem with communist societies too. Compare the wealth generation of East and West Germany, or North and South Korea, under communist vs capitalist systems.

Generally one would not consider the toothbrush I use, and my underwear, to be part of ‘the means of production.’ (I suppose they might be for a prostitute).

When JK Rowling generates a billion dollars worth of personal wealth writing Harry Potter books, what exactly comprises ‘the means of production’? Amazon software? Kindles? Printers? Paper manufacturers? JK Rowling’s keyboard and fingers? Or JK Rowling’s brain?

When Mark Zuckerberg or Jeff Bezos generate billions of dollars of wealth with Facebook and Amazon, what exactly are ‘the means of production?’

Ditto with Bill Gates and Microsoft, or the Google team. What about Uber and AirBnB?

A huge percentage of wealth these days is developed by things such as software, or networking, and is held in the form of Intellectual Property - patents, brand names, logos etc. Harry Potter is effectively a brand name, as is Star Wars. In a slightly different way, so are Oprah, Paris Hilton and Kim Kardashian.

So - does that mean the state should own the brains and names of its people? If JK Rowling writes the name Harry Potter on page one of book one, does that mean the state now must immediately own that name?

Does that mean that all products are automatically themselves ‘means of production?’ The food I eat enables me to work, therefore a loaf of bread is ‘a means of production’?

Are paint and canvas ‘means of production’? Is a Van Gogh painting a final product for people’s wealth and consumption, or is it too ‘a means of production’ that should be owned by the state?

What about an on-line text eBook used in education? (such as The Bible - used in theology studies.) The state must own all Bibles? All printer manuals? All recipe books? All books of all types? Every written document?

In an information economy does that mean that all means of dissemination of information are automatically part of ‘the means of production’? All TV stations? All radio stations? All TV’s and radios? Newspapers? All blogs? Your voice? The state should own your voice?!

How comfortable am I with the idea that my brain and its thoughts are owned by everybody? And how can there be any concept of privacy in such a society?

If the state on behalf of the people owns my body, my voice, my brain, and my thoughts, then presumably it can share my organs with whoever needs them. Someone needs a kidney, and I have two, so the state automatically takes one of my kidneys and allocates it elsewhere. My kidneys are ‘a means of production.’ And I’d better start looking after this asset that belongs to everyone / the state, not to me, so since binge drinking can damage my kidneys it is now a crime. As is any failure to look after my body, such as over-eating, smoking, under-exercising, or failing to brush my teeth. This was indeed a concept under feudalism where the ruler owned everything and all loyalty was owed to one’s liege lord. Presumably is also applies under communism. And explains why CK is not a communist. Neither am I a feudalist. But where might that leave one as a Christian?

And if everyone / the state owns the name ‘Amazon’,or ‘Kim Kardashian’ who exactly can use it?

This is also possibly a reason why Intellectual Property doesn’t tend to flourish under communist systems. It is the capitalist parts of the Chinese system that have grown and flourished producing brand names like Alibaba, which is privately owed.

Before we can even discuss ownership, management, and control of ‘the means of production’, one must first define what ‘the means of production’ is and means. And so far, in forty plus years of thinking about this problem CK hasn’t even succeeded in doing that in a way I find particularly satisfactory.

Karl Marx gave little attention to the matter, but in our 21st Century world Intellectual Property constitutes a huge proportion of the total wealth of mankind. Just ask Monsanto (now Bayer, Pharmacia and Monsanto).

CK’d love it if some readers could provide some input on this aspect of the issue.

Hope these thoughts help.