Sercan Ta MODE OF PRODUCTION and KARL MARX Karl Marx as a revolutionary philosopher conceptualizes society with a dialectical understanding

in which conflicts and contradictions play an active role in social totality. Like Hegel, he discusses the human nature and says that human nature transforms the human life and it creates developments; and this process of development is the world history. This transformation of human life is necessary for human to adjust nature. Human not only adjust nature, but also changes it; but differently from animals, human also change themselves to adjust to nature.1 From this dialectical movement between nature and human, history and whole set of transformations emerge. The conflicts and contradictions are created by dialectical relation. Human has a constant desire to change and transform. But in some moments human becomes restrained by the social forms that is constructed by themselves. The beginning of Marxs dialectic is the nature, the material world. The dialectical relation between nature and human creates conscious but after that the conscious restricts human essence. At this point, Marx is opposing Hegel. According to Hegel conscious is the beginning of dialectic and that creates the material but Marx says that life is not determined by consciousness but consciousness by life.2 For Marx, society is a given totality in which conscious shaped by material and economic relations. With above information, we can come to mode of production. According to Marx, mode of production creates the feeling of restraint and this is alienation. He adds economy politics to his philosophy and creates his theory. Mode of production is a concept which is used to analyze society and history. In a social formation, there are dominant sides and repressed sides that are consequences of conflict relationship. We can mention that there is
1 2

I Craib, Classical Social Theory, (Oxford University Press: 1997), 88. Ibid, 107.

superstructure which consists of political system, legal system and ideology and on the other side infrastructure which is based on economical production and relations. Mode of

production is a constructed structure and refers to a combination of two components: forces of production and relations of production. Each mode of production also consists innate conflicts and these conflicts are the means of historical development and change. The forces of production includes labourer, non-labourer and means of production that are used to produce. Marx distinguishes between labourer and non-labourer. Labourer is subordinated one who transforms the nature through his/her labour power and creates goods and commodities. Nonlabourer is the owner of the means of production. Means of production are the technological, material tools, factory, land, machines which are used for production. When we come to relations of production, we see technical and social relations. People have to consume and for consumption they have to produce. In the process of these, they have to be come into social relations based on economic relations. The contradiction between owner and non-owner brings social struggle. This is immediate force of history according to Marx.3 Each mode of production is eliminated in history by the force of the struggle, contradiction, the dialectic immanent to it. Then comes a new type of mode of production. Marxs historical understanding bases on this ground. He mentions certain historical phases in the development of production.4 These phases start from the primitive communism and goes as slavery, feudalism, capitalism and communism. These forms are social, historical and economic forms. But the determinant one is economics. In each mode of production of each phase, we see some level of technology and knowledge which is determiner of the means of production. With the introduction of technology, labour and production process are affected. Technology increases production. For instance, factory production is actualized by the investment of technology. Also, machines change the way of agriculture. Labour process
3 4

Alex Callinicos, Social Theory, a Historical Introduction (New York: New York University Press, 2000), 93. Ibid, 84.

doesnt stay same all the time, it changes and advances in a dynamic way. Here, we see that Marx seems as if he looks at development in a linear way in historical process. Relations of production is social division of labour or property relationship according to Marx. Relations of production is the control of productive forces and the means of production. The connection and relation of labour power to means of production is the determiner of social division of labour. Control of means of production is important. Class differentiation emerges at this point. When the producers control the means of production, we see a little class differentiation. But if the control of the means of production is in the hands of a minority group, we see a huge class differentiation. In this case, the owners and producers become polarized over the means of production. Exploitation of labour power is seen in the latter case. We see masters and slaves in feudal times and the bosses and workers in capitalist times. We should look at the capitalist mode of production to understand the current structure. In a capitalist society, non-labourer and labourer categories show us the social division of labour. Non-labourers have the means of production and also control conditions of work. Labourers are the ones who are dispossessed of means of production and whose working conditions are arranged by non-labourers. Division of labour is the base of Marxs theory of class. The division of labour that I mentioned above is the result of property relations. Marx explains property relations with relations of production. He also uses exploitation that capitalist production is based on to explain alienation which is immanent to capitalist mode of production. Social division of labour, the dispossession of working class from the means of production and bourgeois control over the means of production are not enough to explain the alienation. Production of commodities is the founding principle of capitalism. Different from other forms of mode of production, production in capitalism is made not for needs or use value but for

exchange value in the product market. We see a difference between the real value of the product and price value of a given commodity. The profit of a commodity comes from here. The difference comes from the commodification of labour power. The use value of a commodity can be calculated with the labour power spending on production. But, the price value of the commodity is higher than use value that it produce profit for capitalist owner. Capitalist should gain profit for each of the products after paying the wages of the working class. This is surplus value that capitalists gain after paying wages. The surplus value gained by the capitalist is reinvested for more profit and improvement of technology. This situation is exploitation that bourgeois class gains surplus value. At this point, commodity fetishism is crucial. Commodity fetishism hides this exploitation. With the help of commodity fetishism men do not experience the social relations and social division of labour. There emerge commodity relations. Production of labourer for the increase of profit of non-labourer creates alienation of human from the goods that he/she produces and from the labour process itself. The social structure that men created throughout the flow of history becomes a restraint on men. The exploitation of this social relations of production is basic ground of capitalist mode of production. Here emerges a contradiction between bourgeois and working class, labourers and non-labourers. Marks claims that the capitalist mode of production creates its own irresistible collapse and the new form/mode of production will emerge as communism. Marks says that What the bourgeoisie therefore produce, above all, are its own gravediggers.5 He also criticizes the hegemonic view which analyzes legal and political matters independent of economic structure. In Critique of Gotha Programme he argues that Right can never be higher than the economic structure of society and the cultural development conditioned by

Karl Marx and Frederich Engels, The Communist Manifesto, (New York: Monthly Review Press, 1998), 61.

it.6 So, we cant see legal and political structure separated from economic structure. Bourgeois or non-labour class secure its own economic interests by manipulating political and legal structure for its own advantage. Marxs historical periodization takes shape with the mode of production. With the tool of mode of production, we divide history into periods and phases. History is the process of that shifts among phases. Each of the mode of production, as I said above, has its own contradictions immanently. These contradictions create class struggle. This class struggle gives way to revolutionary changes that introduce new mode of productions. This is the progress of history. Therefore, mode of production is the tool to divide history into phases. Marx uses mode of production to analyze historical periods. But we cant definitely understand whether Marxs theory of progressive history is linear or circular. He sees each phase as a development and as a progress. So, we can say that each period is better and more advanced than the previous one and the last step communism is the best one. Perceiving history as a progressive entity can be problematic sometimes. This is similar to social evolutionary paradigm in some respects. I think that Marxs analyses is ambiguous about whether the history is linear or circular. To sum up, Marxs historical materialisms basic element is class struggle and human-being consciousness which is shaped material economic structure. Consciousness is not the creator of social structure but on the contrary consciousness is the result of the social structure and mode of production. In this respect, Marx makes Hegels understanding of social structure upside down and names it as historical materialism. The crucial force of history is the mode of production and conflicts immanent to it.

http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1875/gotha/ch01.htm