Production of the "means of production"

[Prinskaj]

A right-libertarian friend of mine asked me about the moral aspect of seizing the inventions (for example: A new mean of production witch can increase productivity) of entrepreneurs, without giving them any compensation for the creativity and innovation they have put into the project.
Could someone please provide me with a satisfying answer?

[Conscript]

Perhaps we can...compensate them?

[thriller]

If the inventor is able to do the work that makes the new invention function, it wouldn't need to be seized. But if he has to hire others to do the work for him, it will be taken by those he hired. Think about it as bottom-up. Those on the bottom that make the invention productive will have the rights to it, not those on the top looking to make a profit off of the people who make the invention useful.

[thefinalmarch]

Basically all the means of production (which includes all the machinery used in the production and distribution of goods, and which also includes the infrastructure which production and distribution are reliant upon -- e.g. roads, power lines, etc.) are created by workers, and capitalists have illegitimately appropriated them, which is why we demand their re-appropriation by their rightful owners - the workers.

Entrepreneurs are defined as owners or managers of a business enterprise who make money through risk and initiative. I don't see why we should be compensating them, etc. for risking the livelihoods of their workers.

As for entrepreneurs in the sense of true inventors or whatever, not many even seem to exist nowadays. Much of the conceptual and design work for new products is done by their employees. Goods are produced by their workers.

This also ties in, to some extent, with intellectual property "rights". We pro-revolutionaries oppose such notions, but we would definitely give proper recognition and credit to the original inventor/designer.

[Prinskaj]

@Conscript
Well how are we then supposed to compensate them, if a non-capitalist economy has emerged? Is credit and honor really enough?

[RedMarxist]

Let's take the classical example of a factory. We know that in existing, present day society, the workers make the product and get paid only for their labor, and not for how much the product that they made is actually worth.

What the product is actually worth goes partially into the hands of the manager, whom owns the factory and makes a profit off of the labor of others.

Why should the manager get more then the workers who labored day in and day out to make the product what it is-a product?

The common argument would be that the workers aren't "skilled or educated" enough, while the manger is. So because the manger is skilled in business, but not with his hands, means that he should make more money then the people who made his business a reality through their own labor?


A right-libertarian friend of mine asked me about the moral aspect of seizing the inventions (for example: A new mean of production witch can increase productivity) of entrepreneurs, without giving them any compensation for the creativity and innovation they have put into the project.

In a better world, the workers could just ask the manager to give up his factory with compensation if he agrees to leave in peace. But we do not live in a better world.

Even if a worker's rebellion succeeded, naturally the Capitalist, the manager, would not be inclined to just give up his factory to a new revolutionary government replacing the old Capitalist government.

Naturally, being as the factory is the Capitalist's livelihood, he would want to fight to retain the rights to owning the factory.

Unfortunately, in this hypothetical situation, a fight would no doubt break out. Once the Capitalist is forced out of the factory office, why should be be rewarded for years of exploitation. Why should he be compensated for years of profit making at the worker's expense?

Why should it be morally wrong to seize the factory from the Capitalist. As it is the livelihood of dozens of workers too. Should not the workers make a higher wage, get better treatment, etc. etc?

feel free to use this explanation to your friend.

[Conscript]

@Conscript
Well how are we then supposed to compensate them, if a non-capitalist economy has emerged? Is credit and honor really enough?

The same way we pay workers in socialism, with goods they desire. If their invention truly has made production more efficient, it should be affordable.

Communism's abundance changes everything though, so i cant really describe what its like to be an inventor in it without being arbitrary.

Recognition is still important. Even an invention that yields 1% extra product with the same amount of labor would improve the lives of everybody noticably through more consumption, more benefits, and so on that were previously unaffordable without the 1% increase. By recognizing this, there is a dual incentive for inventors: more product to satisfy needs, including theirs, and recognition for improving the lives of everbody.

[Tim Cornelis]

This argument again?

(read in enumerative tone)
Innovation is an integral aspect of humanity, we have a natural tendency for innovation. Innovation is motivated by two aspects: 1) mastery 2) purpose (which exist in capitalism and of course will continue to exist in socialism), and one aspect can enhance motivation: autonomy, which is greater under workers' self-management.

Furthermore: monetary reward for innovative work is counter-productive.

Source
u6XAPnuFjJc

[promethean]

A right-libertarian friend of mine asked me about the moral aspect of seizing the inventions (for example: A new mean of production witch can increase productivity) of entrepreneurs, without giving them any compensation for the creativity and innovation they have put into the project.
Could someone please provide me with a satisfying answer?
Entrepreneur is just a different word for capitalist. Most entrepreneurs in history have been exploiters of workers who have thought of clever and cunning ways to exploit waged workers. Their creativity and innovation has been compensated by the profits they earned by the exploitation of workers.

Production of the "means of production"This is part of the accumulation of capital where some of the surplus generated in the circulation process is re-invested by the capitalist into purchasing more means of production.