WL: I am aware of your usage of relations of production. The dispute began
because you stated in no uncertain terms that my use of relations of
production was at variance with Marx and I then presented my basis in Marx
writings. The
question to me is to deal with what Marx wrote and I presented. You do not
in fact use a "classical Marxist description" as you have defined
"classical" and my presentation of the material tends to prove this.
^^^^
CB: The dispute "began" with respect to this passage
("At a certain stage of their development, the
material productive forces of society come in conflict with the existing
relations of production, or - what is but a legal expression for the same
thing - with the property relations within which they have been at work
hitherto.")
^^^^^
CB: In it, he distinguishes between productive forces and relations of
production/property relations in the way I have been.
^^^^
WL :Marx writes:
"In the process of production, human beings work not only upon nature, but
also upon one another. They produce only by working together in a specified
manner and reciprocally exchanging their activities. In order to produce,
they
enter into definite connections and relations to one another, and only
within these social connections and relations does their influence upon
nature operate
i.e., does production take place.
These social relations between the producers, and the conditions under which
they exchange their activities and share in the total act of production,
will naturally vary according to the character of the means of production.
With the
discover of a new instrument of warfare, the firearm, the whole internal
organization of the army was necessarily altered, the relations within which
individuals compose an army and can work as an army were transformed, and
the relation of different armies to another was likewise changed. We thus
see that the social relations within which individuals produce, the social
relations of
production, are altered, transformed, with the change and development of the
material means of production, of the forces of production. The relations of
production in their totality constitute what is called the social relations,
society, and, moreover, a society at a definite stage of historical
development, a society with peculiar, distinctive characteristics. Ancient
society, feudal society, bourgeois (or capitalist) society, are such
totalities of relations of
production, each of which denotes a particular stage of development in the
history of mankind. "
http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1847/wage-labour/ch05.htm
1). Above is Marx "classical" presentation of relations or production.
^^^^^
CB: In the above , he uses "social relations of production" for the
technological organization of production. "Relations of production in their
totality" corresponds to "property relations or relation of production" in
the passage from the Preface to the Contribution to the Critique of PE" .
^^^^^^^
2). Marx above outlines various societies on the basis of "the producers,
and the conditions under which they exchange their activities and share in
the total act of production, will naturally vary according to the character
of the means of production."
3). "We thus see that the social relations within which individuals produce,
the social relations of production, are altered, transformed, with the
change and development of the material means of production, of the forces of
production. The relations of production in their totality constitute what is
called the social relations, . . ."
^^^^^^
CB: In this 1847 essay, he is using a category "SOCIAL relations of
production" to refer to the non-property relations of production, the
organization of job types, technical division of labor. Those technical
relations of production do change with changes in the means of production.
This is the change of the technological regime.
He also uses another category "the relations of production in their
totality" as distinguished from "social relations of production". The
"relations of production in their totality" are property relations, not
technical relations, not the organization of the "shopfloor". "Social
relation of production" are the organization of the "shopfloor". "Relations
of production in their totality" are what distinguish the different epochs,
not "social relations of production." (see the passage you quote).
So, ... Same arugments as before.
^^^^^^^^
WL:OK, lets make this perfectly clear: "the social relations of production,
are altered, transformed, with the change and development of the material
means of production, of the forces of production."
^^^^^
CB: Right. "SOCIAL relations of production", not "Relations of production in
their totality "
^^^^^^
WL :Wait a minute . . . lets look at my varinace with Marx: "relations of
production, are . . . transformed, with the change and development of the
material
means of production, . . ."
^^^^
CB: No . It says "SOCIAL relations of production ". You left off the word
"social".
In this essay, he has "social relations of production" and "relations of
production in their totality". Basically, two phrases with the words
"relations of production" in them.
I'll take
"social relations of production" = organization of the shopfloor
" relations of producttion in their totality" = property relations
^^^^^^^
What are relations of production according to Marx?
4). "In the process of production, human beings work not only upon nature,
but also upon one another. They produce only by working together in a
specified
manner and reciprocally exchanging their activities. In order to produce,
they
enter into definite connections and relations to one another, and only
within
these social connections and relations does their influence upon nature
operate i.e., does production take place.
These social relations between the producers, and the conditions under which
they exchange their activities and share in the total act of production,
will
naturally vary according to the character of the means of production."
Man . . . please. Nothing terribly wrong with your understanding of
relations
of production as property relations. This is typical of the communists of
the
Third International and the CPUSA legacy. Hey . . . in history I evolved
within this general polarity, in the most general sense of polarity.
Waistline
_______________________________________________
Marxism-Thaxis mailing list
[email protected]
To change your options or unsubscribe go to:
http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/listinfo/marxism-thaxis
