• @Shrike502@lemmygrad.ml
    link
    fedilink
    252 years ago

    That does make me wonder though, is it possible to own a little cinema in a socialist system, if you are the only worker there?

    • In socialist Poland there were no public cinemas, although we had quite a lot of petit bourgeoisie in general - peasants and artisans (all of them were organized or affiliated in more or less loose state organizations, but they remained owners of their MoP).

        • Passable i guess.

          First, the reason. For peasants, it was simply impossible to collectivise them. Land issue was a burning wound for centuries, peasants would stand only for petty bourgeoise land reform, nothing else. For artisans, it was for simplicity case - state organisation of most functions performed by them was way too much hassle, and they weren’t very dangerous. Plus modernisation of society, urbanisation and progress of mechanisation and production reduced their numbers steadily (peasants too, especially in relative terms as always with the development).

          How it went. Overall, both peasants and artisans joined the counterrevolution like good little petty bourgesoisie exactly as Lenin predicted and warned, but their strenght was not really impressive and not very deciding. Deciding was that very many workers joined the counterrevolution too, and then we had the standard practied hijacking protest US method.

    • ☭CommieWolf☆
      link
      fedilink
      17
      edit-2
      2 years ago

      Not really, unless you’re the only one watching the films. It would be private property, and you’d be part of the petite bourgeoise.

        • ☭CommieWolf☆
          link
          fedilink
          62 years ago

          Movie theaters are different from factories and farms in that they don’t produce a physical product, rather it provides a service, in this case its entertainment or education, and as such owning one constitutes owning something that generates value through the entertainment it provides.

      • Kaffe
        link
        fedilink
        52 years ago

        Wouldn’t it only be private property if you were asking for payment in exchange for showings?

        • ☭CommieWolf☆
          link
          fedilink
          52 years ago

          If you own it and it produces some sort of value, it is private property, in this case the movie theater is a service, and as such produces value from entertainment.

          So whether you charge or not, if you own it you own some form of value production. There will be costs associated with running such a service, electricity, maintenance etc. And if you pay and maintain it solely on your own then you are essentially giving away the service at no cost to others. But realistically when private ownership is involved, the petty bourgeoise will have an incentive to charge customers to pay for the maintenance.

          How this would work in an ideal socialist society while allowing for the theater to be owned by an individual, I can’t say, as it is against the interest of the owner to give away his service for free since he is the one left to foot the bills.

          • Kaffe
            link
            fedilink
            52 years ago

            That makes sense, the venue would have an outsized cost greater than the individual who owns it, that cost will be supplied by the greater society. They all pay for it, but one person controls it.

            However, doesn’t this break down if the community democratically decides to give the individual the property to maintain, assuming the community can always vote to reclaim the property, it doesn’t seem as if this would be private property at this point. I could realistically imagine this scenario in a very small community.