## Modes of Production 🔹 *parent* [[✧ Sociology|Sociology]] ▫️ *related* [[⏶ The three-age system of European antiquity|The three-age system of European antiquity]], [[⧋ Marxism|Marxism]], [[Chattel Slavery]], [[⏶ Capitalism|Capitalism]], [[Neo-Feudalism]], [[⏶ Relations of Production|Relations of Production]] ### Pre-civilization In [[Origin of the Family, Private Property and the State]], [[Friedrich Engels]] points out that "gents" or clans formed, but I am not sure that it's fair to say this was before slave society. In clans, you belong to either your father or mother's side, but not both, and you "marry out". Clans would live together in large dwelling places. Children were communally taken care of, so even if one was orphaned by mother and father, it still had a family to take care of it. There was a often a sexual division of labor between women who grew and picked food and men who hunted. Decision making powers for both sexes were commensurate with contribution. Our [[#^99d0fa|modern understanding]] of prehistory was first developed by [[@ Christian Jürgensen Thomsen|Christian Jürgensen Thomsen]] when he wrote about [[⏶ The three-age system of European antiquity|The three-age system of European antiquity]] (stone age > bronze age > iron age). Interestingly, he developed the idea by first studying [[Titus Lucretius Carus]] (Lucretius), a greek philosopher who first thought of the progression in ages of human society by the strength of material (wood and stone > copper and bronze > iron). He in turn had been influenced by a Greek poet named Hesiod, who had described the *descending* ages of society, morally, through mixed metaphors that describe *value* of certain metals, currency, and feats (Golden > Silver > Bronze > Heroic > Iron), believing iron to be the least valueable and thus least moral of all preceding ages. >[!question] Information as a form of currency >> This leads me to believe that there has always been some comprehension of value — either in metal currency or subjective moral value — that has underpinned popular explanations of history. The modern understanding of prehistory was come about by a man first attempting to understand the meaning or worth of his coin collection — currency. Could it be possible that we call our modern era *the information age* because information is the most valuable commodity? Modern forms of currency are often themselves bits of information. ### Antiquity and eventual replacement by feudal relations My thought has been that a mode of production is not necessarily all-encompassing within each system. A came to this conclusion from a lecture I saw I believe from Harvard on the Marxist view of history (I think) that talked about modes of production that existed simultaneously between slavery and feudalism. The feudal mode of production started to emerge in the form of Germanic hordes that played a role in ripping the Roman Empire apart - maybe through invasion when the state was particularly weak. But doing so would first require the emergence of this mode of production even though the relations of production in slave society were still dominant. Similarly, differing modes of production have existed simultaneously within [[⏶ Capitalism]] as well [[Chattel Slavery]], some [[socialist modes of production]], and [[neo-feudal]] modes. Though I have questions what exactly constitutes each stage. I'm assuming generally each refer to things like: - Technological capacities ([[means of production]] - Legal frameworks (private, public, common ownership). - [[⏶ Relations of Production]] (bourgeois and proletarian, lord and serf) ### Mercantilism, Semi Feudal Forms, and pre-capitalism [[Caliban and the Witch]], [[{ The Empire of Cotton|The Empire of Cotton]], and [[Origin of Capitalism: A Longer View]] are all dealing with elements of this historical moment somewhere between say, 1500-1900. Caliban and the Witch talks about so-called primitive accumulation, in which certain processes must take place to force landed peasantry into specific relations of production that best suit early capitalism's economic growth period: Chattel slavery, genocide of native Americans, and burning of women at the stake in order to destroy existing communal relations and force them into nuclear families. Empire of Cotton deals with how cotton was fundamental to the development of industrial machinery because it really came on the scene at the right time and the right place - as the UK was invading India and extending itself to American colonies, both of which had particular climates suited for growing cotton. The Origin of Capitalism argues that a new form of mechanization of labor emerged in the English countryside, but was more successful than mercantilism elsewhere in Europe because it didn't need to rely on extra-judicial means for exploitation, but rather used the economic imperatives of the market to drive small commodity producers into factory production. And the expansion of the British Empire in India and the colonies, which extracted huge surpluses initially, helped fuel this momentum. All three books just really changed my understanding of society in transition, and have made me realize that capitalism wasn't exactly an inevitability by any means, but a process that happened to take hold due to specific factors that could have easily gone another way and lead to a different form of mercantilism within Europe, instead. Or may have lead Europe to stay relatively unchanged as other parts of the world developed more quickly. I'm trying to understand these overlapping elements of society that seem to be in constant flux, in order to understand how our own historical moment, which I believe is either at the beginning, or well into, another major turning point. What is specific to each form of society? How can we see modes, means and relations of production as shifting and contradictory elements that push society towards different conclusions? ### Capitalist mode of production Although some modes of production have existed simultaneously in previous periods, what is different between capitalism has been it's ability to dominate the world through the creation of a trans-national legal framework that favors commerce, while previous modes of productions were essentially national and regional in scope. Because of this, capitalism or commodity production can best be characterized by: - Capital accumulation (production for private enterprise rather than personal or household) - Commodity production (means of production) - Private ownership (legal framework) - Primacy of Wage Labor (relations of production) Wikipedia on Capitalist Mode of Production: >"Capitalist society is epitomized by the so-called circuit of commodity production, M-C-M' and by renting money for that purpose where the aggregate of market actors determine the money price M, of the input labor and commodities and M' the struck price of C, the produced market commodity. It is centered on the process M → M', "making money" and the exchange of value that occurs at that point. M' > M is the condition of rationality in the capitalist system and a necessary condition for the next cycle of accumulation/production." >... >"For this reason, Capitalism is "production for exchange" driven by the desire for personal accumulation of money receipts in such exchanges, mediated by free markets. The markets themselves are driven by the needs and wants of consumers and those of society as a whole in the form of the bourgeois state." >... >"What is specific about the “capitalist mode of production” is that most of the inputs and outputs of production are supplied through the market (i.e. they are commodities) and essentially all production is in this mode." >... >"Marx refers to a transition from the “formal subsumption” of production under the power of capital to the “real subsumption” of production under the power of capital. In what he calls the "specifically capitalist mode of production", both the technology worked with and the social organization of labour have been completely refashioned and reshaped in a commercial (profit and market-oriented) way". ### Neo Feudalism And this relates to what I see as different relations of production that seem to be emerging in India and Africa, that can be understood through this framework in order to see how another dominant mode of production might take root - which is neo-feudalism. Instead of regional lordships you have corporate lords with little legal hindrance, mechanization of farming, and third-world serfs, who become tied to the land and subsumed by their dependence on machinery, unable to leave. Thus, not acting as independent wage laborers. %% ## Questions on Quora [Made thread about wikipedia bias](https://qr.ae/pGCl6Y) [Alexander Finnegan](/profile/Alexander-Finnegan) I’m glad you've brought up this topic about the modes of production. I've read several books in the last few years talking about the transition that occurs between modes of production, or more accurately (it seems to me) dominant modes of production. For instance, Chattel slavery and mercantilism were (correct me if I’m wrong) also secondary modes of production that existed simultaneously with capitalism, aided the theft of land and resources necessary to kick start commodity production, but neither were especially ideal in the long term for capitalism as a dominant mode of production. This may better be brought up on another thread, but do you believe it’s useful to put thought into how other secondary communal modes might be necessary for the spread and development of socialism? On the other hand, could neo-feudalism also be seen as a possible outcome or an emerging mode of production that might impede our ability to develop more communal modes? %% ### References [^1]: Wikipedia Commons. *Capitalist Mode of Production* [Wiki](https://www.wikiwand.com/en/Capitalist_mode_of_production_(Marxist_theory)) [^2]: et al. *Mode of Production*. [Wiki](https://www.wikiwand.com/en/Mode_of_production), Marx, *Capital Volume 1*, Chapter 3.3-3.4 [^3]: et al. *The Metalic Ages of Hesiod*, [Wikipedia](https://www.wikiwand.com/en/Three-age_system#/The_Metallic_Ages_of_Hesiod) ^99d0fa [^4]: Marx, Karl. *Capital, Volume 1*, [[Chapter 3|Chapter 3]] [^5]: et al. *Capital, Volume 1*, [[Chapter 15 - Machinery and Large Scale Industry|Chapter 15]]