The problem of the means of production

wooden gears interlocked on a reflective surface at sunset symbolizing teamwork and mechanical process

Sign up here.

These words are often thrown around, but what is the real difference between socialism and capitalism? At its core, it is a question of the means of production.

Capitalism allows individuals to own the means of production. Socialism, on the other hand, insists that the means of production be collectively owned.

So how does a socialist government control an individual’s means of production? And does such control still work in today’s world?

To be clear, I am neither an economist nor a philosopher. I am an ordinary woman who was born and raised in North Korea, sharing stories from within a society that calls itself socialist. I will leave it up to you whether to accept my argument.

When we were young, we were very poor. Few households had refrigerators. Fortunately, the people who lived behind us had one, so whenever we got thirsty while playing outside, we would run over there.

As the number of children grew from one to five, then to ten, the lady of the house began selling us ice.

We didn’t mind. Her ice was tastier than others because she added a bit of sugar and milk.

It wasn’t as if she made much money. Her customers were limited to neighborhood children.

But it seems the government saw things very differently. To the regime, her actions were capitalist. Selling ice was considered an anti-state act that threatened the socialist system. They confiscated her refrigerator, declaring it a means of production used for commercial activity.

That humble fridge had been her only valuable possession. She had bought it with money her relatives had given her when she got married.

She had only wanted to earn a little pocket money, but the result was devastating. After that incident, she fell ill and was left severely debilitated.

Socialism claims that the means of production are owned by everyone, but in reality, a single entity ends up owning everything.

These days, North Korea speaks of the “era of the knowledge industry.” It encourages production through intellect.

Of course, intellectual production comes from individuals. Thus, the state ultimately claims not only people’s labor but also their mental capacity.

Recently, North Korea introduced a new patent law called the “Intellectual Property Protection Law.” But we all know such measures are little more than empty promises.

The fundamental problem of socialism is that the state does not protect individual property.

Once, my mother lent money to a neighbor. The woman encouraged her not to let her money sit idle but to use it to generate more. She promised to pay interest.

My mother gave in to that temptation.

But this is a story with a predictable ending.

At some point, the woman said she could no longer repay the debt, and the case went to the people’s court. My mother went there with the faint hope of recovering at least part of it.

Instead of defending her, the lawyer began criticizing her. Together with the prosecutor, he accused my mother of engaging in usury and pressured her to reveal the source of her money.

Because she had attempted to make money from money, it was deemed that the money itself had become a means of production. As a result, all of her money was confiscated by the state.

After that, my mother lost all trust in government officials. She often laments how foolish she was to believe in the state.

If a law is made in North Korea, it is often nothing more than a tool to justify the state’s unjust actions.

Do you know why socialist systems remain poor? It is because they do not protect private property.

The protection of private property is a driving force of the economy. If what you own is not secure, what incentive do you have to work hard?

There is a well-known story from China that illustrates this.

There were millions of migrant laborers in China—impoverished farmers who left the countryside for cities to try to make a living. As a result of this exodus, grain production kept falling. Despite numerous policies, the regime could solve neither rural poverty nor the resulting food shortages.

As this vicious cycle continued, it is said that Deng Xiaoping invited a renowned American economist for advice.

“How can we improve the lives of Chinese farmers?”

The economist gave a simple answer: “Let farmers decide what to do with what they produce.”

This idea became policy, and grain production increased sixfold.

North Korea today faces a similar problem. Farmers continue to move to cities just to survive.

And it’s no surprise. Farming is exhausting, yet all the produce is taken by the state. Who would work hard under such conditions?

As long as the state takes both the means of production and the products themselves, this problem will never be solved.

But even today, can the North Korean government effectively control the means of production?

In the past, when society was less developed, the means of production were visible and tangible, making them easier to define and control.

But in the digital age, even knowledge has become a means of production.

This means that personal computers in each household can be a means of production. Even one’s own mind can be a means of production.

Today, the concept has expanded beyond the tangible into the intangible. As the boundaries become increasingly blurred, can the state still claim ownership over individuals’ minds?

Applying economic theories from 200 or 300 years ago to sustain socialism today presents countless problems. Perhaps this reflects the limits of Karl Marx’s imagination in predicting the modern world.

Socialism has reached its limits.

When I was in university, one of my professors once said:

“Work according to your ability and receive according to your needs? Then can someone wake up in the morning, play card games all day, and still take as much bread as they want because they’re hungry?”

It is an unattainable dream.

Marx chose the wrong species to realize his grand vision. Human nature is inherently self-interested. What can be done about that?

Let me confess something to you. My parents were true communists.

Even when their children contributed very little, they allowed us to take as much as we wanted.

Within the family, we are all true communists.

Communism and socialism may function only within the intimate unit of a loving family. That is because, within the family, we teach fairness using even our fingers and toes.

But beyond that small unit, there has yet to be a real example of such a system working properly.

About
Latest Posts

Jang Mi

Born in Chongjin in 1990, Jang Mi was not a studious child, but under her mother’s influence, she graduated from high school and went on to university to take math and science. She worked as a wedding video editor for seven years until her defection in 2019.