In general I don't believe in a model of discrete modes of production,
replacing one another in sequence, with transitions each time growing
productivity runs up against the limits of the mode. I know this is in
Marx - and bizarrely seems to have been accepted by huge numbers of non
and anti-marxists - but it's only in one place in Marx (the
Introduction..); everywhere Marx looks at modes of production in detail
(in Das Kapital, in the Grundrisse, even the 18th Brumaire etc) actual
societies are combinations of fragments of different modes of
production. The one that comes closest to a coincidence of society and
single mode of production is capitalism, and even that is not a total
coincidence (the peasantry and domestic service in Marx's time, free
software in ours, etc).
I disagree, I think that indeed there have always been mixtures, but, that
there have been dominant modes as well; M-C'M' was certainly not dominant in
the slave based system, but the slave system was; in the feudal system again
capitalist exchange was minor, but tributary allocation major ...
thanks for the details below, I do not disagree with these points,
Michel
I prefer the side of Marx that says 'to know what went on needs picking
apart the actual details in the most concrete way possible, not fitting
the concrete into an abstract pre-given framework'.
not pre-given, a posteriori after the study of many concrete examples
Why did feudalism develop in the West, and not another
slave-based
system?
Why did the former win, if not because it somehow also offered a
more
productive venue
for society and its rulers?
People pre-Soviet Russia used to talk about two alternatives to
capitalism - 'socialism or barbarism', where barbarism is a result of
the 'mutual ruin of the two contending classes'. The barbarism
option
is
what happened to the western Roman empire. The ruling class wrecked
society and no other class was in a position to take over.
They
couldn't
even run their army properly by the end. So the germanic peoples
invaded. They had had serfdom for centuries (as mentioned already in
Tacitus' Germania) and brought it with them. It was easier to integrate
the local population in some areas than others where the coloni system
was already established, but that's all. In England for example there
was no internal evolution at all; the Germanic peoples just imposed
their own system.
Talking about 'offering a more productive venue for society and its
rulers' assumes some kind of continuity, especially for the rulers,
which just wasn't there. Unless you're saying that from the
viewpoint
of
some hegelian spirit of history different 'rulers' incarnate the same
function. I don't think the Goths ever said "we'll take over the empire
for you, but only on condition that production is higher than it was
when your agriculture was based on latifundia with slaves". They just
said "we'll have that, and this is how we run things".
I"m interested in your answers,
My answers may change next time you ask - no way I'm an expert on
any
of
this. Gregers would be a better person to ask.. :-)
Graham
Michel
_______________________________________________________________________________
_____
Be a better friend, newshound, and
know-it-all with Yahoo! Mobile. Try it
now.
http://mobile.yahoo.com/;_ylt=Ahu06i62sR8HDtDypao8Wcj9tAcJ
_________________________________
Web-Site: http://www.oekonux.org/
Organization: http://www.oekonux.de/projekt/
Contact: projekt oekonux.de
_________________________________
Web-Site: http://www.oekonux.org/
Organization: http://www.oekonux.de/projekt/
Contact: projekt oekonux.de
____________________________________________________________________________________
Looking for last minute shopping deals?
Find them fast with Yahoo! Search. http://tools.search.yahoo.com/newsearch/category.php?category=shopping
_________________________________
Web-Site: http://www.oekonux.org/
Organization: http://www.oekonux.de/projekt/
Contact: projekt oekonux.de