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.
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.
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.
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.
What would need to change for it to be means of production specifically?
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.
Ah, got it. Thank you for the explanation!
no problem, comrade
Wouldn’t it only be private property if you were asking for payment in exchange for showings?
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.
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.