In Marxist economics and its contemporary derivatives, the means of production [in German: Produktionsmittel] refers to physical, non-human, inputs used in production. This includes factories, machines, tools and materials, along with both infrastructural capital and natural capital, the classical factors of production minus financial capital and minus human capital or labour (economics). Means of production in Karl Marx's theory are a component of the productive forces. When used in contemporary terms, 'means of production' usually applies to land or commons being converted to natural resources, and to that infrastructural capital which is not owned strictly in common but is applied to make "goods". Marx's analysis does not distinguish between infrastructural and natural means of production, but that distinction could be introduced. Karl Marx focused on labour (economics) questions: He considered it a reification to treat labor as just another "factor" in production; it implied an inversion of means and ends, so that people were effectively used as things. The working classes are the principal productive forces of society, since their labor creates and conserves material wealth. The bourgeoisie, meanwhile, comprises people who Ownership and trade in means of production as capital assets, and who hire workers to work for them, using those means of production. The bourgeois as property owner can obtain a profit from the work of his employees because the value of output exceeds the outlay on wages and materials. Therefore, the bourgeois obtains a surplus value from the work of his employees. In the Marxist view, constitutes exploitation of the workers. Marx's terms are often employed in economic analysis by socialist parties who advocate public ownership of some (or all) means of production. The affinity between labor movement causes and this advocacy is very strong - and often shared by social democrats, socialists, communists and greens. Marx's analysis in particular helped to make clear the key differences between human capital and "labor" or "human resources" - which earlier political economy favoring labor value (e.g. that of David Ricardo) had not done. Some green economists, notably Brian Milani, draw parallels between Marx's treatment of labor and natural capital, accepting Marx's view that land (economics) is a means, but not a simple factor, of production. Others go further to argue that land (economics), more fully regarded as natural capital must be seen as a sort of "lumpenproletariat" performing ecological work. Still others, including many following neoclassical economics, argue that nothing that is alive (land, labor) and therefore negentropy can be counted as a "means" for anything else that is alive and negentropy - and reject the Marxist terms of reference entirely. There is thus a dispute on convergence between the idea of "means of production" and the modern general notion of capital (economics); Marx's analysis has been important in refining the factors of production wherein individual and natural (alive, natural, creative) actors are kept separate from instructional, social, infrastructural and financial (unliving, entropic, imitative "means") "factors", at least to some degree - notably in the analyses of Natural Capitalism and some macro-economics which study the choice (by people) to do work, or take recreation. In the analysis of Baldassari and Acquisti, any living actor may choose to use or not use a "means", but an unliving "factor" can only take orders from above, robotically, without any capacity to question. Or, indeed, any capacity to take or choose to do harm. There is thus a clear distinction between a "means", including autonomous intellectual capital, and a "factor" whose detailed choices are defined by passive instructional capital and limits of infrastructural capital. This analysis avoids however the problem of individual capital or "enterprise" or "ingenuity", and how choices to act or not act work in the large to define roles or rules. Some theorists emphasize the "driving down" of decision-making power "closer to the customer" as making the roles of bourgeois and proletarian more alike. Whether true or false, however, this would not affect the basic idea of means of production; rather, it would simply render it ambiguous where means begin and factors end. In particular, the role of those who employ only financial capital and do not directly use the other factors of production remains distinct. The most significant feature of capitalism, in the Marxist analysis, is the fact that the ruling class monopolizes the means of protection, thus of property law enforcement, which keeps the financial capital valuable and convertible into the means of production (all other forms of capital (economics)). There are parallels in analysis by modern feminist economists, notably Marilyn Waring who argues that women's work has been systematically devalued and undervalued, while education and training sufficient to use the "means" deemed most valuable by society have traditionally gone to men. She sarcastically parallels two very different ideas of "value" by focusing on village women in a developing nation whose day is defined by the search for clean water and dry firewood, and a man in a U.S. missile silo, whose day is defined by waiting for orders to destroy the Soviet Union. She argues, in general, that woman is to man as lumpen is to proletariat, but does not use those terms herself, evidently to avoid offending the Marxists. ==See also== *Mode of production *Productive forces *Relations of production Marxist theory Economics
Marx's analysis is mostly of historical interest now, but many of those who follow him in feminist, green, and labor circles are of increasing influence. Therefore I treat this article as a bit of a guide to those newer theories, and make clear the way that a "means" employed by the individual worker or work team must be differentiated from a "factor" in an abstract analysis of a proces from the top down. That assumption is everywhere in Marx's analysis, and it's linguistically determined by the careful differentiation of 'means' from 'factors' by every Marxist I've ever met. Even the phrase 'factors of production' tends to get Marxists angry so they might not like the way that I have characterized means *as* factors. But that's the most neutral way to go, since the wikipedia will be read by rabid greens, rabid libertarians, rabid feminists, etc. Damn hard even to *explain* Marx to these people... sigh. ---- Saying that Marx "considered it immoral" is a serious distortion of Marxism, which is not based (or supposedly not based, and I certainly think not really in this area) on moral factors. This is hardly NPOV. First say what Marxism 'claims', then you might say that people disagree with it and what Marxism says are extra-moral factors are viewed by Marxism's opponents as really moral, and what is the basis of the anti-Marxists' argument. Furthermore, saying that "Marx's analysis is mostly of historical interest now" is at least controversial, and I would argue blatantly false. Read the 18th Brumaire! Read almost anything Marx ever wrote! Because a lot of state-capitalist, anti-Marxist bureaucracies in the Soviet Union and Eastern Europe collapsed, what does that have to do with anything, and if it does, isn't it exactly what Marx says would happen in the 18th Brumaire? user:danielcboyer
See other meanings of words starting from letter:
Words begining with Means_of_production:
Means_of_production
Means_of_production
Means of production
In Marxist economics and its contemporary derivatives, the means of production [in German: Produktionsmittel] refers to physical, non-human, inputs used in production. This includes factories, machines, tools and materials, along with both infrastructural capital and natural capital, the classical factors of production minus financial capital and minus human capital or labour (economics). Means of production in Karl Marx's theory are a component of the productive forces. When used in contemporary terms, 'means of production' usually applies to land or commons being converted to natural resources, and to that infrastructural capital which is not owned strictly in common but is applied to make "goods". Marx's analysis does not distinguish between infrastructural and natural means of production, but that distinction could be introduced. Karl Marx focused on labour (economics) questions: He considered it a reification to treat labor as just another "factor" in production; it implied an inversion of means and ends, so that people were effectively used as things. The working classes are the principal productive forces of society, since their labor creates and conserves material wealth. The bourgeoisie, meanwhile, comprises people who Ownership and trade in means of production as capital assets, and who hire workers to work for them, using those means of production. The bourgeois as property owner can obtain a profit from the work of his employees because the value of output exceeds the outlay on wages and materials. Therefore, the bourgeois obtains a surplus value from the work of his employees. In the Marxist view, constitutes exploitation of the workers. Marx's terms are often employed in economic analysis by socialist parties who advocate public ownership of some (or all) means of production. The affinity between labor movement causes and this advocacy is very strong - and often shared by social democrats, socialists, communists and greens. Marx's analysis in particular helped to make clear the key differences between human capital and "labor" or "human resources" - which earlier political economy favoring labor value (e.g. that of David Ricardo) had not done. Some green economists, notably Brian Milani, draw parallels between Marx's treatment of labor and natural capital, accepting Marx's view that land (economics) is a means, but not a simple factor, of production. Others go further to argue that land (economics), more fully regarded as natural capital must be seen as a sort of "lumpenproletariat" performing ecological work. Still others, including many following neoclassical economics, argue that nothing that is alive (land, labor) and therefore negentropy can be counted as a "means" for anything else that is alive and negentropy - and reject the Marxist terms of reference entirely. There is thus a dispute on convergence between the idea of "means of production" and the modern general notion of capital (economics); Marx's analysis has been important in refining the factors of production wherein individual and natural (alive, natural, creative) actors are kept separate from instructional, social, infrastructural and financial (unliving, entropic, imitative "means") "factors", at least to some degree - notably in the analyses of Natural Capitalism and some macro-economics which study the choice (by people) to do work, or take recreation. In the analysis of Baldassari and Acquisti, any living actor may choose to use or not use a "means", but an unliving "factor" can only take orders from above, robotically, without any capacity to question. Or, indeed, any capacity to take or choose to do harm. There is thus a clear distinction between a "means", including autonomous intellectual capital, and a "factor" whose detailed choices are defined by passive instructional capital and limits of infrastructural capital. This analysis avoids however the problem of individual capital or "enterprise" or "ingenuity", and how choices to act or not act work in the large to define roles or rules. Some theorists emphasize the "driving down" of decision-making power "closer to the customer" as making the roles of bourgeois and proletarian more alike. Whether true or false, however, this would not affect the basic idea of means of production; rather, it would simply render it ambiguous where means begin and factors end. In particular, the role of those who employ only financial capital and do not directly use the other factors of production remains distinct. The most significant feature of capitalism, in the Marxist analysis, is the fact that the ruling class monopolizes the means of protection, thus of property law enforcement, which keeps the financial capital valuable and convertible into the means of production (all other forms of capital (economics)). There are parallels in analysis by modern feminist economists, notably Marilyn Waring who argues that women's work has been systematically devalued and undervalued, while education and training sufficient to use the "means" deemed most valuable by society have traditionally gone to men. She sarcastically parallels two very different ideas of "value" by focusing on village women in a developing nation whose day is defined by the search for clean water and dry firewood, and a man in a U.S. missile silo, whose day is defined by waiting for orders to destroy the Soviet Union. She argues, in general, that woman is to man as lumpen is to proletariat, but does not use those terms herself, evidently to avoid offending the Marxists. ==See also== *Mode of production *Productive forces *Relations of production Marxist theory Economics
Means of production
Marx's analysis is mostly of historical interest now, but many of those who follow him in feminist, green, and labor circles are of increasing influence. Therefore I treat this article as a bit of a guide to those newer theories, and make clear the way that a "means" employed by the individual worker or work team must be differentiated from a "factor" in an abstract analysis of a proces from the top down. That assumption is everywhere in Marx's analysis, and it's linguistically determined by the careful differentiation of 'means' from 'factors' by every Marxist I've ever met. Even the phrase 'factors of production' tends to get Marxists angry so they might not like the way that I have characterized means *as* factors. But that's the most neutral way to go, since the wikipedia will be read by rabid greens, rabid libertarians, rabid feminists, etc. Damn hard even to *explain* Marx to these people... sigh. ---- Saying that Marx "considered it immoral" is a serious distortion of Marxism, which is not based (or supposedly not based, and I certainly think not really in this area) on moral factors. This is hardly NPOV. First say what Marxism 'claims', then you might say that people disagree with it and what Marxism says are extra-moral factors are viewed by Marxism's opponents as really moral, and what is the basis of the anti-Marxists' argument. Furthermore, saying that "Marx's analysis is mostly of historical interest now" is at least controversial, and I would argue blatantly false. Read the 18th Brumaire! Read almost anything Marx ever wrote! Because a lot of state-capitalist, anti-Marxist bureaucracies in the Soviet Union and Eastern Europe collapsed, what does that have to do with anything, and if it does, isn't it exactly what Marx says would happen in the 18th Brumaire? user:danielcboyer
See other meanings of words starting from letter:
M
MA | MB | MC | MD | ME | MF | MG | MH | MI | MJ | MK | ML | MN | MO | MP | MR | MS | MT | MU | MW | MX | MY | MZ |Words begining with Means_of_production:
Means_of_production
Means_of_production
These materials are based on Wikipedia and licensed under the GNU FDL
YouTube.com videos better site than Turbo Tax 2007
