Talk:Mode of production

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	This article is supported by the Sociology WikiProject, which gives a central approach to sociology and related subjects on Wikipedia. Please participate by editing the article Mode of production, or visit the project page for more details on the projects.
Start	This article has been rated as Start-Class on the quality scale.
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the importance scale.

[edit] Free software movement

The enhanced productivity of the productive force of the internet for software programming and white collar work is combined with the relation of production indicated in the property form of the GNU GPL or GNU FDL Whoever wrote this (and the paragraph in which it is contained) has no idea what he is talking about. "Copyright" is not a relation of production!! (Hint: Which entity enforces Copyright?) Also, I dont think the "Free Software Movement" controls the means of distribution (the internet) and I never heard of a cooperative of workers making computer chips. Somebody please review the paragraph or I'll kindly delete it. Thanks. --129.13.251.76 23:45, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Whether or not the author of that paragraph is right, your criticism isn't. Of course copyright is not a relation of production, which is why the author is careful to say the relation of production indicated in the property form of the GPL. Which is long-winded, but does answer your particular complaint. The free software movement does not control the means of distribution, but generally programmers do control their own means of production. Next, you may never have heard of them but there are a whole bunch of processor designs under the GPL in manufacture (mostly SPARC derivatives). But picking at your detailed criticisms doesn't answer the general point, which is whether it is possible for multiple modes of production to coexist. If you take slavery in the American South as an example - was that a coexistence of slave and capitalist modes of production? I think it's hard to deny it, in spite of the fact that the slaveowners did not live on cotton but on food not necessarily grown by slaves, in houses not built by slaves, etc; while at the same town capitalists invested in and profited from the slave trade, cotton production etc. Rather than simply deleting this paragraph, the article could do with an expansion of the section 'articulation of modes of production' which includes references to work done on this topic in the 70s (especially by the Althusserians, Godelier etc) and something about the concept of 'social formation' referring to societies involving multiple and interdependent modes of production. The software paragraph should then be reconsidered in that context, as an example of interdepence between different modes of production. Marinheiro 11:58, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

A very naive paragraph, I must say. Based on superfluous application of phraseology. Not to say that capitalism quickly figured out how to make money from "free" software. And forgetting to mention that major proponents of free software happen to make big bucks somewhere. I.e., free software is in no way a definitive force of economy (at least of their personal one). I'd rather compare the notion of free software with the notion of copyright/patent expiration: patents are result of hard labor eventually become free, making patent holders rich in the meantime (theoretically). Free software, while being free from the start, have a mysterious way to make their users rich. Mikkalai 07:01, 12 Nov 2004 (UTC)

But as the article points out, the making of money is not the determining factor of a mode of production.Fifelfoo 05:36, 15 Nov 2004 (UTC)

My chaotic rant is not about making money. It is about trying to mechanically apply the marxist terminology to some other situations. It demonstrates at least two things.

• Reductio ad absurdum shows that marxism (or at least some of its interpretations) is not very scientific, since one may easily devise hundreds of "modes of production" perfectly fitting to the marxist definition, but leading to nowhere. (Recall that according to marx, "mode of production" defines the form of the society.) Mikkalai 05:59, 15 Nov 2004 (UTC)

[edit] No distinction between 'socialism' and 'communism'

Points 6 and 7 in the section entitled "The modes of production in history" are not Marxist. There's no evidence that marx distinguished between socialism and communism at all and especially not in the way suggested in the article. Nor did he suggest there would be two phases following capitalism. See Critique of The Gotha Programme. Also, see the preface to the 1888 English edition of the Communist Manifesto for a brief discussion of why M&E chose 'communist' over 'socialist'.

Lenin, on the other hand, did make this distinction - years after Marx's death. Hydrostatic 16:33, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] somewhat inacurate

Marx actually never truly defined the real deffinition of Mode of Production, despite being a term used by him very losely in Das Kapital. One of the many explanations for what Mode of Production truly means was given my Marta Harnecker in her book "Capital: fundamental concepts": Mode of production is defined by: 1)a global structure, formed by three structures: economic structure, law and political structure and Ideology (ideas and customs). 2)in this global structure, one regional structure always dominates the others, usually is not the economical one as it is usually believed 3)In this global structure the economical structure will always determinant in last instance (difference between dominant and determinant structure) 4)what characterizes the mode of production is its dinamics, its continual reproduction of its conditions of existance.

" Despite the imminent potential of communism, some economic "

The link you get from clicking on "imminent" leads to one for a german band, not any kind of definition of the word.

193.113.57.163 10:05, 15 January 2007 (UTC)Mark