Free Capitalist Network - Community Archive
Mises Community Archive
An online community for fans of Austrian economics and libertarianism, featuring forums, user blogs, and more.

Mean of Production

rated by 0 users
This post has 9 Replies | 1 Follower

Top 25 Contributor
Posts 3,739
Points 60,635
Marko Posted: Tue, Jan 18 2011 4:43 AM

What is the definition of the means of production? Is it at all possible to separate property which falls under 'the means of production' from the property that does not count as such?

We have wants that we satisfy with goods. Everything which we own we own because it produces a good for us - if it did not we would abandon it. My toothbrush is an instrument of labour with which I create the good called 'clean teeth', is it not?

It would seem there is no distinction but wether the property in question can be used to produce a good for someone else than myself. My toothbrush can only be used to clean my teeth so I am welcome to it. But my garden could be used to grow vegetables for the Party officials therefore I better watch out.

What do you think?

  • | Post Points: 20
Top 25 Contributor
Posts 4,532
Points 84,495
Stranger replied on Tue, Jan 18 2011 7:35 AM

I think the Marxist definition involves alienation from labor. If you hire someone to brush your teeth for you, and you provide the toothbrush, then the toothbrush is a mean of production.

  • | Post Points: 20
Top 25 Contributor
Posts 3,739
Points 60,635
Marko replied on Tue, Jan 18 2011 12:24 PM

That sounds like a very good explanation on the face of it, but when I think about it more, if it held then what would be the justification for farm collectivisation? Most farmers worked their land on their own jet it was taken away from them.

  • | Post Points: 20
Top 50 Contributor
Male
Posts 1,899
Points 37,230

If you're talking about farm collectivization in the USSR, those were (mostly) peasants.  They were not individual farm owners.

In States a fresh law is looked upon as a remedy for evil. Instead of themselves altering what is bad, people begin by demanding a law to alter it. ... In short, a law everywhere and for everything!

~Peter Kropotkin

  • | Post Points: 20
Top 500 Contributor
Male
Posts 244
Points 5,455
Felipe replied on Wed, Jan 19 2011 12:14 PM

And what about the kulaks?

  • | Post Points: 20
Top 50 Contributor
Male
Posts 1,899
Points 37,230

Terrible things.  What does it have to do with whether or not farm collectivization in the USSR was collectivising peasants or individual farm owenrs?

In States a fresh law is looked upon as a remedy for evil. Instead of themselves altering what is bad, people begin by demanding a law to alter it. ... In short, a law everywhere and for everything!

~Peter Kropotkin

  • | Post Points: 35
Top 500 Contributor
Male
Posts 244
Points 5,455
Felipe replied on Wed, Jan 19 2011 2:57 PM

I understand that the kulaks that rose after the NEP was implemented were pretty much individual farm owners.

  • | Post Points: 20
Top 25 Contributor
Posts 4,532
Points 84,495
Stranger replied on Wed, Jan 19 2011 5:27 PM

The NEP was explicitly an anti-capitalist policy.

  • | Post Points: 5
Top 50 Contributor
Male
Posts 2,651
Points 51,325
Moderator

"Epicurus" apparently cannot distinguish kulaks from gulags.

  • | Post Points: 20
Top 50 Contributor
Male
Posts 1,899
Points 37,230

Good point.  I was thinking of Gulags crying

In States a fresh law is looked upon as a remedy for evil. Instead of themselves altering what is bad, people begin by demanding a law to alter it. ... In short, a law everywhere and for everything!

~Peter Kropotkin

  • | Post Points: 5
Page 1 of 1 (10 items) | RSS