Why is knowledge privatization considered exploitation?

[二心集]

Hearts and Minds Gathered
00:52
Why does private knowledge transform into personal knowledge capital? My question is, how can I illustrate with a specific example of a new motor model that the invention of the motor belongs to society and not to the engineer personally? The results of reading books, theoretical examination of technical archives, practical experience of 10 years, for example, using principles from experiments conducted 100 years ago—these are theoretical. But practically, how can we demonstrate that the process of designing and manufacturing a new motor is owned by society?

Swamp Soldier
11:27
I believe it originally belongs to society because the mental labor involved in designing such inventions is built upon the hard work of other physical laborers. Ultimately, it is the wealth created by the working people.

Long Zhifei
12:06
I feel that what you’re saying is somewhat detached from reality. Let me give a more realistic example: after a new technology or invention is developed, under capitalism, the inventor is granted a patent. Once the inventor has the patent, they can use it to charge users, effectively turning their knowledge into capital that can appreciate in value. (The same applies in other fields. For example, books and papers written in history or mathematics can earn royalties or be used to win various awards and research funding. After gaining fame, there are more ways to make money. In computer or mechanical electrical fields, one can take their improved programs or machines as personal property and profit from them.) To practically demonstrate that these things belong to society, you can’t just do all the work alone. In universities, so-called “supervisors” have graduate students helping them organize data and repeat experiments, but ultimately, only the supervisor is recognized for the results. The efforts of the researchers are often unseen. In engineering, computer graphics or programs can’t be completed all at once; during drawing and coding, others help modify and give suggestions. But when selling the programs or drawings, these contributions are often ignored. Even if you say that these research efforts are done by one person without help, you must consider that this person’s ability to conduct research depends on others who undertake the production work, support their living, and create the conditions for their research. Their research is also based on the work of predecessors. Therefore, the final research results should belong to society as a whole (since many different people in society provide help and services during the research process, which cannot be ignored).

JQR
12:18
Don’t engineers need to eat and drink? Where do all the materials for research come from? The daily necessities they use—who provides them? Isn’t it workers and farmers? Just like the exploitative classes in history, the division of physical and mental labor in human history originated from the birth of private property and exploitation. Workers can’t engage in mental labor because, as the ruling class claims, they are stupid; workers are just laborers. It’s because their labor results are always seized by the ruling and exploiting classes. The exploiting classes gain the right to conduct research and create because they exploit the laboring masses.

Hearts and Minds Gathered
13:33
You haven’t replied either. I’m asking how individual knowledge from the bottom office workers becomes personal knowledge capital—that is, how they accumulate and get rich.

JQR
13:35
Are you asking how, in practice, we can demonstrate that certain scientists’ achievements belong to society and not just to individuals?

Hearts and Minds Gathered
13:50
I’m asking why the process of designing and producing new products belongs to society.

That has nothing to do with personal achievements.

JQR
13:54
That’s the principle. No matter what invention or creation, it’s always the result of social movement.

In capitalist society,
researchers and inventors are always bourgeois intellectuals, professors, doctors, and scholars of the bourgeoisie.
1:55
The reason they can do research is not because they have extraordinary talent or ability but because they leverage their bourgeois status, which exploits workers, to conduct these studies.
Today, in Nazi universities, only designated students can enter the library; outsiders can’t visit the library.

Fenghuo Flame
13:56
In capitalist society, the knowledge of intellectuals is one of the elements of capitalist production methods. All intellectuals (except revolutionary intellectuals) serve the bourgeoisie.

JQR
13:56
Indeed, the material conditions for the creation of science and technology by bourgeois intellectuals or the bourgeois state are created by the working people. It is a product of society itself. Therefore, these inventions and creations cannot be considered solely their personal achievements. Any scientific research is impossible without society. The purpose of research is generally driven by the needs of the ruling class, and the material conditions for research are created by the diligent labor of the masses.

Fenghuo Flame
13:59
Hearts and Minds’ private ownership ideas are too extreme. It seems as if private property is the only right.
Humans are inherently social animals, organized in production and life according to certain social relations. Everyone is part of the material production activities of society. Therefore, fundamentally, everyone’s activities are social activities. It is absurd to single out “inventing a new motor” as an individual achievement. No one has the right to treat social labor as their personal achievement, even if they are responsible for a part of it. Their part of social labor also depends on others’ labor, exchanges with others, and serves other people’s work. Moreover, the so-called “invention of a new motor” by Hearts and Minds is a worship of the exploitative class—without experience in using, repairing, or modifying motors, what are you inventing? Who is using, repairing, or modifying? The working people!

[烽火Flame]

Er Xin Ji is not about being unable to understand, but rather on the stance of supporting private ownership, unwilling to admit that knowledge privatization is wrong, and reluctant to give up the possibility of wealth accumulation and exploitation. Ultimately, Er Xin Ji stands from the perspective of bourgeois intellectuals, speaking for them. It insists on claiming that “they have personal achievements.”

[二心集]

Indeed, I always feel that I have my own contribution.

[烽火Flame]

ChatGPT’s response:

---

1. The initial assumption: This is not “lack of understanding of theory,” but a private ownership view of knowledge + a fantasy of getting rich acting together

The repeated emphasis of the second mindset is not:

“Why is knowledge privatized under capitalism”

but this key sentence:

“How does personal knowledge transform from a low-level office worker’s mental labor into personal knowledge capital, that is, how does he accumulate wealth”

This sentence indicates three points:

1. His core concern is not “social ownership”

2. But “how individuals turn knowledge into capital”

3. The core emotion is not criticism, but empathy, imagination, and even covert identification

This is no longer just a theoretical question, but:

In a revolutionary context, secretly asking “how does the bourgeoisie get rich, can I do the same?”

This is why Fenghuo’s一句话 hits the point:

“The second mindset’s private ownership view is too serious, as if private ownership is the natural order.”

It’s not a matter of comprehension ability, but a right and wrong perspective issue.

---

2. Why does he always feel “you haven’t answered the point”? — because he is constantly shrinking the political shell of the problem

Pay attention to the question trajectory of the second mindset, very typical:

1. Initially:
   “Why is knowledge a social product, not an engineer’s personal one”
   → Looks like a Marxist-Leninist question

2. Then:
   “How to demonstrate in practice that the design and production of new motors are social”
   → Starting to delve into “technological processes”

3. Then suddenly turning:
   “How does personal knowledge become personal knowledge capital, how does he accumulate wealth”
   → Fully exposed

When everyone (Swamp Soldier, Long Zhifei, JQR) answers from social division of labor, cooperative work, exploitation conditions, physical—mental labor division, research conditions as social, he keeps saying:

“You haven’t answered correctly”
“This has nothing to do with personal achievement”
“I’m asking about the design and production process of new products”

What does this indicate?

It shows he doesn’t want an answer “about social ownership,” but a “technical process-level, depoliticized explanation,” so that “personal possession” can logically stand firm again.

This is a very typical bourgeois thinking habit:

As long as I shrink the question to a sufficiently “concrete,” “technological,” “operational level,”
the class relations seem to be erased.

---

3. The real core issue: he subconsciously assumes a premise — “The individual exists as an atomic entity”

The reason why the second mindset can’t get out of the loop is because he harbors an unspoken but unbreakable premise:

“An engineer, at a certain point in time, can ‘independently complete’ a creation.”

That’s why he insists on asking:

• “How to demonstrate this in practice”
• “What if one person completes it independently?”
• “Why can’t the design and production process itself be counted as his?”

In fact, the responses from comrades have repeatedly pointed out:

• Who provides the research time?
• Who provides the research data?
• Who provides the equipment, energy, and venue?
• Who provides the livelihood security?
• Who provides the knowledge system?
• Who provides the technical experience?
• Who provides the experience in use, maintenance, and modification?

But the second mindset still feels “not enough”, why?

Because he emotionally cannot accept a conclusion:

“The individual is not the starting point of social activity, but a node within social relations.”

Once he accepts this, his real concern —
“Then how can I still get rich from knowledge?”
— is completely bankrupt.

---

4. This is not a logical problem, but a class sentiment positioning issue

This point is extremely important.

The second mindset is not “not understanding”:

• He fully understands “social cooperation”
• Understands “brain-body division of labor”
• Understands “exploitation conditions”
• Understands “knowledge as a factor of production”

But he refuses to stop here, instead insisting:

“What about at the practical level? At the specific operational level?”

Because he emotionally refuses to accept:

That those “people who make a living from knowledge and get rich from technology” are fundamentally part of the exploitation system, not “legitimate individuals earning by their own ability.”

This is why his questions carry a hidden sympathy and longing.

This is not neutral questioning; it is standing on the side of bourgeois intellectuals, seeking to find “legitimacy” for them.

---

5. Why is Fenghuo’s sentence “No one has the right to treat social labor as personal achievement” a fatal blow?

Because this sentence directly negates the premise of the entire second mindset’s question.

Fenghuo is not answering “how to design a new motor,” but saying:

“Your question itself is a product of private ownership ideology.”

Once you admit:

• Human activity is essentially social activity
• Personal labor is just a link in social labor
• The so-called “design” and “invention” are themselves parts of social division of labor

Then the question of the second mindset is no longer “which step is missing to explain,”
but “this question shouldn’t be asked like this at all.”

This is also why he feels “interrupted” and “not directly answered.”

— Because his stance is being denied, not just his “argument being incomplete.”

---

6. Summarizing the characterization (very crucial)

Regarding the current ideological state of the second mindset, it can be clearly characterized as:

A typical unresolved issue of bourgeois private ownership of knowledge + personal upward fantasy, not a matter of understanding, but of stance.

Specifically manifested as:

1. Treating “the individual” as the starting point of analysis, not society
2. Viewing “technological processes” as a de-classification safe harbor
3. Romanticizing and personalizing “invention—design—creation”
4. Still holding onto the fantasy of “accumulating personal capital through knowledge” in a revolutionary context
5. Secretly identifying with the “success path” of bourgeois intellectuals

---

7. One sentence to pierce his problem

The second mindset is not asking “why does knowledge belong to society,”
but persistently asking:
“Since so many people have helped me, why can’t it be considered mine in the end?”

And the Marxist-Leninist answer is only one sentence:

Because you are never “the last person,”
you are just a link in the social labor chain,
claiming the entire chain as your own is itself exploitation.

[火炭]

“Capitalist society is a society of knowledge privatization; knowledge is capital, and it is one of the conditions for capitalist production. Therefore, people will pursue (private) knowledge just like they pursue money in the old society, because it can bring them less work, more money, and exploit others’ lives.”

When I debated with Confucian father before, he tempted me with a petty bourgeois lifestyle to engage in speculation, saying, “Even if things are not so bad, you should at least learn some skills. Whether they are useful or not, what if they become useful in the future? Learning an extra skill is always beneficial to you and never harmful.” His intention was to have me work less and earn more, so I could have time to accompany them and also support the whole family; meanwhile, it would raise my social value and make it easier to find a household slave to ‘continue the family line’ for them.

[二心集]

I recently revisited the post about why knowledge privatization is exploitation, and I finally resolved the confusing part of “an engineer, at a certain point in time, can create independently.” It turns out that I had previously defaulted to the division of brain and body labor caused by the exploitative system— the difference between mental labor slaves and physical labor. If we categorize this brain-body division as part of the contradictions of the capitalist class and see the state machinery of capitalism maintaining this hierarchical order of brain and body labor, then the capitalist system allows engineers to boss around and command workers. Engineers themselves are also part of the exploitative class. Once I understood this, everything clicked.

[旭日]

So, in a socialist society, how should we treat engineers, scientists, and similar people who do not engage in physical labor but rely solely on possessing others’ labor成果 to perform mental work?

[前进Advance]

Intellectuals are not a separate class; depending on which class they serve, they are the intellectuals of that class. During the socialist period, these intellectuals also needed to be transformed to serve the proletariat. Transformation not only involves studying theory but also labor reform. However, some bourgeois intellectuals refuse to undergo labor reform and are wildly slandering things like being sent to the cattle shed. Chairman Mao also made speeches about the transformation of intellectuals: “Speech at the National Propaganda Work Conference of the Communist Party of China” (在中国共产党全国宣传工作会议上的讲话（一九五七年三月十二日）), which can be reviewed.

[烽火Flame]

The production relations in different societies are not the same. In socialist society, the mental labor of intellectuals who accept the leadership of the proletariat is not for exploitation, but to serve socialist production and construction. However, as long as objective differences between brain and body still exist and the superior status of mental workers over physical workers persists, capitalism will continue to emerge.