Problems with Marxism

[shamrock123]

Hey I'm new to reading Marx et al and I've run into a problem. It's probably easily explainable but I'm kind of dumb (and lazy). I also haven't read a whole lot of Marx so if anybody could give me ideas for further reading in regards to this problem that would be awesome.

Marx says that society develops according to the means of production and certain classes develop in relation to the means of production. Why then are there highly developed mercantile relations in an otherwise slave driven economy (i.e. Roman Empire)? Don't mercantile relations only develop rapidly at the end stage of feudalism when the bourgeoisie is on the rise? It seems to me that Marx isn't really taking the fluidity of human society into consideration and is instead segmenting it into definite modes of history which don't really seem to make sense given what we know about history. So I guess my big problem right now is with Historical Materialism?

[chegitz guevara]

The dominant mode of production is not the sole mode of production. Feudal, slave, and bourgeois modes of production did exist along side one another. The level of technology generally determined which mode was dominant within a given society, although, for limited times, a mode could assume dominance when it wasn't ripe, and thus failed to last in the long run.

[shamrock123]

But should these modes of production even exist if the means of production aren't developed? That's the idea I've gotten from reading Marx so far: the means of production determine the class nature of society. So feudal, slave, and bourgeois modes of production shouldn't exist at the same time, especially in the formative stages of human civilization like the slave societies of Babylon and Rome. Is there a direct source where Marx talks about this stuff you can direct me towards?

[rouchambeau]

Don't mercantile relations only develop rapidly at the end stage of feudalism when the bourgeoisie is on the rise?
Where did Marx ever assert this?

[shamrock123]

Where did Marx ever assert this?

That was the gist I was getting from what I was reading. That class relations were dependent on the modes of production and so any kind of mercantilism or feudalism or capitalism couldn't develop until the modes of production were set.

Again, if you could point me towards something Marx (or any Marxist) wrote that clarifies or simplifies this that would be awesome.

[chegitz guevara]

What were you reading?

[shamrock123]

What were you reading?

The Communist Manifesto, Capital for Beginners (that cartoon one). Like I said I'm new. If I'm not understanding this could you explain it to me or point me in the direction of where I can learn more?

No offense but you guys aren't really helping.

[chegitz guevara]

The Communist Manifesto, Capital for Beginners (that cartoon one). Like I said I'm new. If I'm not understanding this could you explain it to me or point me in the direction of where I can learn more?

No offense but you guys aren't really helping.

I wanted to know what you had read. Keep in mind that you are reading two fairly basic primers. They're only explaining general, broad themes in history, not getting down to nitty, gritty details. Marx was less interested in writing a detailed explanation of the materialist conception of history than he was in showing the underlying tendencies of capitalism and how they would lead to its dissolution. Marx and Engels only go in to deeper explanation of the method in the first part of The German Ideology (http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1845/german-ideology/ch01.htm).

Those comrades used the method frequently to explain contemporary events, but don't often get into older history. This link to the Marxist Internet Archive On Pre-Capitalist Social Formations and the Peasantry (http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/subject/precapitalist/index.htm) will show you some of their writings on the subject. I would also recommend Karl Kautsky's book, Foundations of Christianity (http://www.marxists.org/archive/kautsky/1908/christ/index.htm), specifically the section on the slave economy. If you want to read a fictional account of the Roman Empire from a Marxist perspective, pick up Spartacus by Howard Fast.


But should these modes of production even exist if the means of production aren't developed? That's the idea I've gotten from reading Marx so far: the means of production determine the class nature of society. So feudal, slave, and bourgeois modes of production shouldn't exist at the same time, especially in the formative stages of human civilization like the slave societies of Babylon and Rome. Is there a direct source where Marx talks about this stuff you can direct me towards?

Nothing in Marx says that other modes of production cannot exist along side dominant ones. Marxism just posits that if we want to understand a society, the most important aspect to understand is the dominant mode of production. If we want to understand the Roman economy, understanding the slave system is more important than understanding the niche capitalist mode of production.

[shamrock123]

Nothing in Marx says that other modes of production cannot exist along side dominant ones. Marxism just posits that if we want to understand a society, the most important aspect to understand is the dominant mode of production. If we want to understand the Roman economy, understanding the slave system is more important than understanding the niche capitalist mode of production.

Awesome thanks. I've been meaning to get into the German Ideology. I have today and tomorrow off work so I'll definitely check it out. I still don't understand how a niche capitalist mode of production could develop in a slave system if the means of production aren't developed enough but I'll read up a bit and get back to you haha.

Thanks for your help.

[chegitz guevara]

Not everything develops at the same rate. For some types of production, slavery would be more inefficient than using wage labor.

[shamrock123]

Not everything develops at the same rate. For some types of production, slavery would be more inefficient than using wage labor.

Right but I was under the impression that Marx said wage labour couldn't develop until the means of production were developed enough for wage labour. From what I've read I gathered that society develops in revolutions - slavery to feudalism, feudalism to capitalism, capitalism to socialism. I understand that lower forms of exploitation such as slavery can be used by the ruling class in higher stages of society, for example slavery could be resurrected in a feudal or capitalist society, but that a higher stage (such as capitalism) couldn't exist before its time (in slave society for example).

Anyway, I picked up a copy of Pre-Capitalist Economic Formations at a used bookstore earlier today and I'm going to read it tonight.

Thanks again for the recommendations.

[Luís Henrique]

That was the gist I was getting from what I was reading. That class relations were dependent on the modes of production and so any kind of mercantilism or feudalism or capitalism couldn't develop until the modes of production were set.

I think you may be confusing capitalism with commerce. Commerce predates capitalism by millenia, and commerce is not production, but just distribution. Yes, there are striking similarities between the superstructure of slaverist Ancient Ages and Modern capitalist societies. These similarities should be correctly appreciated: they don't mean the Ancient world prefigurated capitalism, but, rather on the contrary, a much less spectacular phenomenon: that modernity has borrowed heavily from Ancient (particularly Roman) legislation.


Again, if you could point me towards something Marx (or any Marxist) wrote that clarifies or simplifies this that would be awesome.

Pre-Capitalist Economic Formations
http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1857/precapitalist/index.htm

Hope that helps.

Luís Henrique

[Sam_b]

Problems with Marxism

Its just too good!