Means of Production & Distribution

[Comrade #138672]

When used in the broad sense, the "means of production" includes the "means of distribution" which includes stores, banks, and railroads.Source: Wikipedia

When Marxists talk about the means of production, does that generally include the means of distribution? And if not, why make the distinction?

[Камо́ Зэд]

I personally don't see why the distinction would have to be made. Both productive forces and distributive forces are under control of the bourgeoisie as it stands, and it follows that both of these things would come under the control of the proletariat during the socialist endeavor.

[citizen of industry]

Yes, the two are inseperable parts of a whole. Distribution, as well as consumption are determined by production. I recommend the passages from Grundrisse on "Consumption and Production" and "Distribution and Production."

Production creates the consumer, and before distribution can be distribution of products it is distribution of the instruments of production and distribution of members of society in different branches of production.

[Comrade #138672]

Is it possible to view banks and stores as secondary means of production? There are still capitalists who extract the surplus value of the labour power of the workers and use it to accumulate capital. The service could be viewed as a secondary product.

[citizen of industry]

Banks recieve part of the surplus value from the production process in the form of interest. Stores receive a portion of the surplus value from the production process because the producer sells wholesale, he sacrifices a part of the surplus value to the retailer in order to speed up his circulation and ensure the surplus is realized, not sitting there unsold. The store realizes the surplus when the consumer buys the product. In both cases, the surplus value is derived from the production process. Banks and stores are profitable, but not "productive."

[citizen of industry]

Also, it should be clear, that the producers are slave to the bank (or shareholders, holding companies,etc.) Basically, they are owned by the former, and the surplus value is divided into what is needed for expansion, dividends to bank and shareholder, and executive salaries (wages of supervision). The store is also slave to the bank and shareholder, and minus what is subtracted for expansion, overhead and wages of supervision, goes to the investors. So you have monopoly. And a "legitimate" claim by producers that they can't afford to increase wages or better working conditions (if they open their books to a labour commission it will reveal that after dividends and interest payments, salaries, overhead and production costs, and wages, they have nothing left, no matter how profitable they are). The investors, who collectively own and set into motion all the capital, are absent from the production process and have no responsibility towards the workers.

[Catma]

You seem to be asking whether banks and stores perform socially necessary labor. Distribution of goods, which includes transport, housing, etc. will always be necessary. Moving a finished good from the factory to the worker is production, just the same as moving the component parts inside the factory to assemble the product is production.

Banks are a different story, but they do serve some use. They track value, albeit in terms of cash. This function might continue to be necessary if something like a labor voucher system is instituted - just administratively noting how much everybody has.

Banks also disburse funding for new projects. Something like this would also exist as part of the production process in a non-capitalist society, except it would be administered democratically and with the needs of the community as an end goal, and not accumulation of profit.