Why I'm Not a Socialist

A factory is nothing without its people

When I worked at the factory, my life was dominated by machines. Simply reaching my workstation meant getting around whizzing forklifts and huge stamps that turned rolled steel into components. At my workstation, my responsibilities began with a loading hopper, ran along a conveyor belt, and ended in a crimp-seam setter. The line then proceeded through a paint sprayer, drying oven, ink-jet printer, various options for packaging, and a robot for loading the shipping pallet.

Whenever I hear leftist advocates encouraging socialism, citing Marxist slogans like “workers control the means of production,” I can’t forget that line. In order to manufacture simple, widely used car parts, we had millions of dollars in specialized equipment, and as noisy, difficult, and onerous as these machines were, making the parts without them would’ve been even worse. Yet I cannot help wondering whether I, or any reasonable employee, ever want to own this equipment?

We’ve heard the word “socialism” flung around so wildly recently that it means little. From tinkering around capitalism’s edges, to near-beer communism, so many philosophies now wear the name “socialism” that it’s difficult to discuss the topic without bogging down in technicalities. But to some degree, all socialisms agree that workers should control the fruits of their labors. And I cannot imagine how that’s possible without owning the production system, which I don’t ever want.

It’s impossible to improve the outcomes of labor without massive capital investments—and yes, they’ll remain capital investments even if we exclude “capital” from our vocabulary. Without the machines streamlining our production line, the fuel filters we manufactured would’ve been more expensive than a car. They would’ve required hand-tooled, painstakingly sealed, individually painted… I could continue. Point is, these million-dollar machines kept labor output affordable, so you can afford fuel filters without a second mortgage.

So. The machines are necessary for manufacturing. But should the people operating the machines own them? I say no. Currently, the corporation owns the equipment, which ties them, and only them, to their massive sunk cost. Employees, unhappy with factory conditions, could hypothetically walk away. Management, chained to the equipment they own, are stuck with it, and with their jobs. That’s the deeper problem with owning the means of production: eventually it owns you too.

I saw this daily with certain employees: specifically maintenance mechanics. Unlike line workers, like me, who had no ownership stake, mechanics owned their own tools. Many of these tools are very specialized, having only one or two uses, but the mechanics needed to own them. This resulted in a buy-in totalling thousands of dollars, just to do their job. These mechanics couldn’t change careers, at least until they’d paid the amortized cost of their tools.

A factory is nothing without its machines

Worse, it didn’t just tie them to one career; it tied them to one employer. In our small-ish community, there were only three about three employers who could provide work to machinists, meaning labor price couldn’t float. If the machinists withheld their labor, they could only travel to two other workplaces… where they’d probably worked already. Thus, by tying workers to their very expensive tools, employers weakened workers’ bargaining positions. Basically the opposite of socialism.

When workers own tools, they own their jobs. This isn’t entirely bad, and it explains why, working construction now, I had no problem buying my own impact driver and cordless circular saw. But once you own your job, your non-work life changes consummately. Once I owned carpentry tools, I didn’t just do carpentry during the day; it became my off-hours hobby, partly to justify, if only to myself, that I hadn’t bought into my job.

To put it another way, you don’t just buy your tools, you buy into your tools. There’s a categorical difference between owning about $200 worth of power tools, and owning thousands, even millions, of dollars of specialized equipment. If my colleagues and I banded together to purchase the fuel filter production line, we’d own the output of our labors, certainly, Herr Marx. But the production line would also own us, preventing us from walking away.

Farmers should own their land. Carpenters should own their tools. When you describe conventional, multiply skilled jobs, this makes sense, as workers can decide independently to contract with capital as equals, or employ themselves. But industrial production doesn’t work that way. Human labor and physical capital multiply one another, at the expense of single, non-portable skills. In manufacturing, “equality” requires workers to be able to walk away. Which they can’t, if they’re chained to ownership.

See also: Why I'm Not Conservative Anymore