Talk:Means of production

message: 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.
----
There's another page that handles "factors of production". There's no need to define "means of production" as "factors of production" and then describe "factors of productdion" here on the "means of production" page. That only makes the task of explaining Marxism that much harder. --Cplot 16:02, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Personally I suspect that Marx really did consider it immoral, but I agree that saying so raises POV issues. Mark Foskey 17:51, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled

message: I'll need to check, but I'm sure Proudhon used a version of this phrase (in French, obviously) before Marx and Engels developed their theories. It's also a term that's been used by anarchists ever since. This really needs to be properly reflected in the article (the term "factors of production" is rarely, if ever, used IIRC). Donnacha 17:26, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I looked at some Proudhon and he does use the phrase. It looks as though Marx learned the phrase from French Sociaism. Though I didn't see Proudhon using it in a systematic and analysitical manner that Marx does. --Cplot 20:32, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Proudhon and the anarchists

message: The "means of production" can also refer to producing and raising children. (unsigned)
:I'm fairly certain that would be termed the means of reproduction, and frankly anyone describing reproduction while using the term production is probably not a biologist. Darkmagine (talk) 04:14, 13 June 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Means of (social or biological) production 

message: This was an extremely helpful article.  However, the more I pondered this section, the less sense it made:
Means of production is sometimes confused with factors of production. The term factors of production is typically understood as an explanation for income as duly paid to owners of each means of production and also to the workers themselves within capitalism.
I think it needs to be rewritten to enhance clarity! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.108.18.51 (talk) 07:40, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you for your suggestion! When you feel an article needs improvement, please feel free to make those changes.  Wikipedia is a wiki, so anyone can edit almost any article by simply following the  link at the top. You don't even need to log in (although there are many reasons why you might want to).  The Wikipedia community encourages you to be bold in updating pages. Don't worry too much about making honest mistakes — they're likely to be found and corrected quickly. If you're not sure how editing works, check out how to edit a page, or use the sandbox to try out your editing skills.  New contributors are always welcome. --causa sui talk 17:06, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Yes, it needs work; I will try to get to it if noone else does. 72.228.150.44 (talk) 00:20, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Unclear 

message: It would be really helpful to have the definition of the Austrian School or the Neoclassical School about the means of production. Agrofelipe (talk) 10:06, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  This page really needs an austrian or neoclassic approach 

message: And in digital economy human attention is a mean of production. Not easy to externalize or proceduralize, but Google's CEO could tell you about processes of conditioning their employees.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.11.95.119 (talk) 10:58, 15 November 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  digital economy 

message: 'where the surplus product becomes a source of unearned income for its owners.'
What do you mean 'unearned'?
Where does this definition come from? Not Marx because he never argued that surplus value comes from thievery or robbery or from 'buying cheap and selling dear.' That is what 'unearned' implies. Under capitalist private property relations, it is legally considered EARNED income for the owners, board of directors and shareholders even if they were not involved in the actual physical process of producing that surplus-value.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.84.68.252 (talk) 19:33, 1 August 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  definition issue