[lotsofpulp]

Doesn’t the British government and/or Australian government own Bluey?

What capital is there to own? Maybe Ludo Studios negotiated a piece of the pie for themselves, but I doubt it is much in the grand scheme of things.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bluey_(TV_series)

> It was commissioned by the Australian Broadcasting Corporation and the British Broadcasting Corporation, with BBC Studios holding global distribution and merchandising rights.

[dahart]

The government part is a good point, this is not the best example of a capitalist endeavor.

> What capital is there to own?

The rights you mentioned is part of the ‘capital’ - these days capital and ‘means of production’ certainly involve intellectual property. I think it always did - capital was always referring to ownership - but the mix is starting to lean heavily on intangibles now, with software running so much of the world. The ABC & BBC capital used to include tons of high power broadcasting equipment, but maybe that mostly going or gone now?

[lotsofpulp]

I didn’t mean capital in the accounting sense, I meant receiving capital as remuneration as opposed to a salary. The more accurate word would have been equity, but I was using the term polotics used:

>it was about capital ownership granting full access to work-created value.

[dahart]

What do you mean? @plotics wasn’t talking about remuneration for products or services, nor equity. “Capital ownership” in the sentence you quoted is referring to the company, the ol’ ownership of the means of production. “Granting full access to work-created value” means the owners (investors, CEO, etc.) would split profits among workers rather than keep the profits for themselves.

[lotsofpulp]

That is called equity (at least in the USA).

> Granting full access to work-created value” means the owners (investors, CEO, etc.) would split profits among workers rather than keep the profits for themselves.

This is remuneration, the reward in exchange for your effort/wares/risk.

In this case, the artist would have had to ask taxpayers (or the taxpayers’ representatives) to sell them a piece of the taxpayer’s equity. Or some type of royalty/revenue sharing agreement.

Obviously, that was not going to happen for a small time artist (that kind of stuff is reserved for well connected people when it comes to government assets).

But the second best option the world has come up with is public equity markets, where the common people can invest and gain access to equity, which is also very liquid.

[dahart]

You asked what the capital is, and the government assets reserved for well connected people is the “capital” in this case.

You can call capital equity or remuneration, but that seems slightly weird even though there’s overlap of concepts. Either way, I don’t think that’s what the phrase @plotics used was referring to. The “capital” in that case was referring to the money, goods, and other means of production used to finance the project before any remuneration occurs. Capital is the leverage by which the well connected people assert the rights to the future profits. Workers not having equity is indeed what not having access to the full value means, which keeps workers from building capital.

I think we’re probably in agreement. And even though there’s an analogy to capital, Bluey wasn’t a capitalist operation so definitely not clear Marxist ideas apply here.