I guess there's an argument here that words should be updated to match the times and make it easier to digest for people that aren't read on theory but on the other hand these terms have weight and meaning behind them and are reflective of texts about the politics of communism and such.
Not to mention that every text you read will directly reference terms like this, so changing them only means you now have to work harder to understand the founding theory. The terms are solid as hell and even a dumbass like me can grasp them after a few pages (but fuck the economic stuff in Capital is a tough read).
We don't need to randomly change the words for economy, money, insurance, or stocks every 100 years to make liberal textbooks "updated". Lawyers literally still use latin terms, if we're updating can we not start there first?
I guess there's an argument here that words should be updated to match the times and make it easier to digest for people that aren't read on theory but on the other hand these terms have weight and meaning behind them and are reflective of texts about the politics of communism and such.
Means of production isn't even a "term". It's literally what they are. There is no other word for it and it's not an old term.
People complain about "means of production" and yet somehow "means of payment" isn't equally scorned. I wonder why . . .
How about means testing?
Not to mention that every text you read will directly reference terms like this, so changing them only means you now have to work harder to understand the founding theory. The terms are solid as hell and even a dumbass like me can grasp them after a few pages (but fuck the economic stuff in Capital is a tough read).
We don't need to randomly change the words for economy, money, insurance, or stocks every 100 years to make liberal textbooks "updated". Lawyers literally still use latin terms, if we're updating can we not start there first?