Blaut?s Modes Debate PART 2

[Greg Schofield <gschofield@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Blaut's Modes Debate PART 2

In the Communist Manifesto the unilineal part of the latter Modes of
Production schema is more or less implied, slave, feudal, capitalist,
communist. Up until this point pre-class societies are not so much explored
but used philosophically, deducted from known class societies and no-doubt
partially informed by a variety of "noble savage" ideas, which despite
their obvious distortion were used as an active criticism of then
contemporary society and carried at least small germs of truth about the
societies they purported to discuss.

It would be fair to say that the core concepts that would later become the
schema are already established by this period, but not formally so. "Mode
of Production" should still be written "mode of production", in lower case.
However, if "mode of production" is used as a species-type classification
(Marx actually uses it in a number of less strict ways, all of which are
pretty clear from context), then I find it hard to imagine how this is
faulted, or for that matter what it has to do with progressivist ideology,
there is also more to it, but elaborating this point will come in handy later.

Until Marx starts working consistently towards writing Capital he uses
Modes of Production in the classificatory sense, but also in what we might
call now relations of production or "modes of production" in lower case
signifying nothing more than the existence of productive relations which
are not the same as the dominant classification (ie family relations and
slavery within the Capitalist Mode of Production).

This need not worry us, because there is no conflict that cannot be readily
seen in context, besides the full schema as such is not yet in existence.
Clearly the Capitalist Mode of Production is seen as being presupposed by
previous dominant relations of property and production as it has manifested
in historically derived capitalism.

The relationship is necessarily abstract, history never followed such
straight courses as the abstract presupposition would suggest, but the
logic is there already manifested in actual history, what Marx had to do,
and I believe this is unavoidable, is find those previous dominant forms of
property and productive relations which gave reason to the development of
capitalism.
They were not difficult to find, anyone given a classical education as Marx
had, would know them soon enough, but Marx differed in that he had a method
which brought them to the fore.

It was not the slavery relation which was important by itself in the
classical world, nor the relation of feudal dues, or for that matter wages.
All these things and more can be found in any class society. Moreover most
can also be found in communal states of pre-class society.

To drum home the point even further, not only can they be found but they
can sometimes be found more or less in sequence. That is the slave as part
of the means of production, to the serf becoming attached to the means of
production, to the worker being freed from the means of production. And
none of this need ever create capitalism as a Mode of Production, though it
might create capitalists along the way.

The missing element is private property, not any form of property will do,
for private property alone adds the necessary lubrication to the
development. Private Property per se, exists by virtue of being recognised
as such an being supported directly by the state (not that states need ever
do this continuously, just in the main). In other words the full existence
of private property presupposes the private property owner already has the
state in hand, that is the dominance of a particular relation of production
depends on this historico-political dominance.

The essence of Private Property is its personification in individual deemed
to hold that property and to one extent or another protect his/her
interests in it with the support of the state (passively or actively). One
does not need to know very much about European history to know how tenuous
this is, but this is really beside the point because in a sense it is
through this property that social wealth is created and disbursed, whatever
particular lapses (and they are common) the whole rested on this nexus.

The Slave Mode of Production rested on the dominance not just of slavery
but slavery as the means of production held as private property. Likewise
Feudalism rests not just on the manorial system of labour dues, but the
private ownership of them and we need not mention capitalism. There is no
need for this property to be exclusive, nor even majoritarian, just so long
as it provides the productive mechanisms to support the whole and determine
its character.

Perhaps the recent moves to socialise capital through share ownership
amongst the bourgeois is just an indication that the productive powers have
now raised themselves so high that the property form begun in the classical
period has now reach the point of exhaustion - but that is another question.

Are their alternatives? Japan offers an interesting example as its rapid
and successful and early transformation is well known and somewhat
exceptional. It could be argued that Japan in 1853 had a Feudal Mode of
Production and so capital's intrusion simply sparked what was already lying
in wait. Unfortunately it is not true.

The Emperor Meji had to institute private property. It was certainly a
fortuitous situation that allowed it to happen in the way it did, but there
is nothing to indicate that it would have headed in this direction of its
own accord, indeed the whole of Japanese history spoke against such a
development, private property did not exist in any major form before hand
and it took a major revolution (Emperor led) to achieve the beginnings of
the transformation.

But Japan holds a separate lesson germane to the debate. It also shows
despite the Mode of Production designation and all that infers,
non-european societies, any society for that matter, insofar as it can free
labour and institute private property is abstractly capable of becoming
capitalist. However, there has to be sufficient reason to do so - in Japan
the motivating reason was military, and the geographic factor that fed into
this was it isolation, which gave the breathing space to make hay while the
sun shone (politically the fact that the Emperor was deemed a God was also
an important factor).

Now the question lurking behind this is whether such a society could skip
capitalism altogether, not institute private property and proceed. Again
the answer is given sufficient reason there are no theoretical barriers -
keeping in mind that a proletariat has to be first created and that
socialised property is an open temptation to create new class relations,
especially considering the near absence of a working class to actually
rule, it is difficult see anything other than a class arising atop the
socialised property.

In fact, I would have thought that we had plenty of examples of this (USSR,
China etc). You don't have to be Einstien to see that while it is possible,
even necessary in some circumstances, it runs certain risks. If class
relations develop as a result of socialised production, the task of
proletarianisation is not necessarily faulted, but the nature of surplus
disposal may make things a bit wonky.

If such a society, thoroughly proletarianised but only partially
industrialised, more importantly where the proletariat might for historical
reasons not be a position to rule, then the development of the productive
forces might require a change at the top which entails necessary political
and social changes. None of this disbars progress in any metaphysical
sense, but history and its geopolitics and all the other factors will play
their role, and limit to their various degrees the nature of the class
struggle.

Marxism does not have a stage theory as such, for that would be giving
metaphysical properties to abstract concepts and tools designed to
critically reveal the complexities of the real. The development of the
productive forces is not however an ahistorical question either. If Japan
is any guide, the devil is always in the details, so to speak.

In the next post I will try and deal with the Despotic Mode of Production
and have a little to say on the distorting effect of tribute relations in
general and specifically under imperialism.
________________________________
REFERENCES
1) Ellen Wood "Eurocentric Anti-Eurocentrism"
http//www.igc.apc.org/solidarity/atc/92Wood.html (EAE) - 2001
2) James Blaut "Marxism and Eurocentric Diffusionism"
http//www.marxmail.org/euromarxism.htm (MED) - 1999
3) Greg Schofield "On the Vexed Question of Socialism"
http//www.ucc.org.uk/RS/1.1.htm (VQS) - 2001