It does, but these are analytic terms. Using language that makes sense to ordinary people when talking to them about politics is great and obviously necessary, but just arbitrarily using new words for the same concepts within an analytic context means translating a whole critical traditional for the sake of saying 'method' as opposed to 'means'
I'm not an economist, but as far as I'm aware they don't mean the same thing. Methods seems to refer the difference between, for example, artisanal production and factory production, while the means of production for Marx are the things (tools, machinery, etc.) that when combined with the labour of workers allows a commodity to be produced.
When we talk about seizing the means of production, we mean creating a democratic economy in which workers own and control the machinery/infrastructure that allows commodities to be produced and distributed. In a capitalist economy the means are alienated, and thus require seizing, because they are owned by the bourgeoisie/ownership class and that allows that class to steal part of the value that is created when the means of production are used by workers. That kind of alienation is inherent to capitalism because it is a system defined by the division of society into owning and working classes. In contrast, from a Marxist perspective, it doesn't make sense to talk about seizing the methods of production, because, the need to seize is generated by the alienation that comes from not owning the means of production, not from the method of production being used.
I do agree with you that language evolves and that we should use different terms when talking to people who are unfamiliar with Marx. But it doesn't make sense to just do away with the terms that we use among ourselves to analyse and understand capitalism, because these are the product of a long tradition of struggle and critique and provide a common vocabulary that allows us to use shorthands rather than having to explain each term that we use whenever we want to use it. It's jargon, but that's true of most language that is specific to a given community.
Please discard the tools that allow you to think about the economic relations within society. No, I will not explain
methods of production
working class
owning class / big business
Struggle session: Language evolves
It does, but these are analytic terms. Using language that makes sense to ordinary people when talking to them about politics is great and obviously necessary, but just arbitrarily using new words for the same concepts within an analytic context means translating a whole critical traditional for the sake of saying 'method' as opposed to 'means'
deleted by creator
Methods of production and means of production are two completely different things.
I'm not an economist, but as far as I'm aware they don't mean the same thing. Methods seems to refer the difference between, for example, artisanal production and factory production, while the means of production for Marx are the things (tools, machinery, etc.) that when combined with the labour of workers allows a commodity to be produced.
When we talk about seizing the means of production, we mean creating a democratic economy in which workers own and control the machinery/infrastructure that allows commodities to be produced and distributed. In a capitalist economy the means are alienated, and thus require seizing, because they are owned by the bourgeoisie/ownership class and that allows that class to steal part of the value that is created when the means of production are used by workers. That kind of alienation is inherent to capitalism because it is a system defined by the division of society into owning and working classes. In contrast, from a Marxist perspective, it doesn't make sense to talk about seizing the methods of production, because, the need to seize is generated by the alienation that comes from not owning the means of production, not from the method of production being used.
I do agree with you that language evolves and that we should use different terms when talking to people who are unfamiliar with Marx. But it doesn't make sense to just do away with the terms that we use among ourselves to analyse and understand capitalism, because these are the product of a long tradition of struggle and critique and provide a common vocabulary that allows us to use shorthands rather than having to explain each term that we use whenever we want to use it. It's jargon, but that's true of most language that is specific to a given community.
Smokey stack buildings
hammer bois
top hat fucks
deleted by creator
Here comes the banhammer!