Marx's Production Relations (original) (raw)
Related papers
Dialectics of Economical Base and Socio-Cultural Superstructure: A Marxist Perspective
2017
The works those were regarded as great scholarship in nineteenth century Europe are German Ideology, British Economy and French Materialism. In this century German Philosophy was enriched with the help of Hegelian dialectic method and the materialism of Feuerbach. On the other hand British economy was developed by the enquiry of economic structure of a nation. Adam smith and David Ricardo proposed their value of labour theory that enriched British economy as capitalist system. And also we can see in this century the great development of socialistic theory in French socialism. These are all regarded as the source of Marxist theory. Marxism has its three parts-Marxist philosophy, Marxist economy and Marxist socialism. Dialectic materialism is understood as Marxist philosophy. The use of this dialectic materialism is for the enquiry of historical development of human civilisation and known as historical materialism also. So, Marxist philosophy is referred as dialectic and historical materialism. In Marxist theory, social structure consists of two partsbase and superstructure. Base and superstructure designate the social relations of a historically determined society as a total system in which material relations represent the real base or the foundation of society. On the other hand the political, religious, philosophical and ideological relations etc. represent the superstructure, which rise upon the given base and is determined by the base. 2. ECONOMIC UNDERSTANDING OF BASE AND SUPERSTRUCTURE: Marxist philosophy used dialectic materialism and historical materialism as a way of interpretation of human civilisation, what is known as materialistic interpretation of history or socioeconomic interpretation of history. According to this theory, what happened in the society is created by materialistic or economic circumstances. What man has founded from the primitive age to till now, like religion, marriage system, art, culture, civilisation are all determined by the material or economic condition. For this reason Marx was of the opinion that economy is the base of all things. The economy of a given society determines its social, religious and cultural life. So we can say that civilisation of a particular stage entirely depend upon the economic condition or economic environment of that stage. For example, the economic environment of primitive age was based on slavery, that of feudalism in mediaeval age and of capitalism in the modern age. According to Marxist theory, in future a new economic condition will arise upon within the womb of modern capitalist society, which would replace the entire economic system of capitalism and establish a new economic system according to which the entire superstructure will be transformed into different shape [Joseph Stalin 1975; 25-39]. For Marx, the usage of social process of production determines the man's relation and their right in society. The mode of production, the relations of production and the means of productionall these construct the economic
2017
The works those were regarded as great scholarship in nineteenth century Europe are German Ideology, British Economy and French Materialism. In this century German Philosophy was enriched with the help of Hegelian dialectic method and the materialism of Feuerbach. On the other hand British economy was developed by the enquiry of economic structure of a nation. Adam smith and David Ricardo proposed their value of labour theory that enriched British economy as capitalist system. And also we can see in this century the great development of socialistic theory in French socialism. These are all regarded as the source of Marxist theory. Marxism has its three parts-Marxist philosophy, Marxist economy and Marxist socialism. Dialectic materialism is understood as Marxist philosophy. The use of this dialectic materialism is for the enquiry of historical development of human civilisation and known as historical materialism also. So, Marxist philosophy is referred as dialectic and historical materialism. In Marxist theory, social structure consists of two partsbase and superstructure. Base and superstructure designate the social relations of a historically determined society as a total system in which material relations represent the real base or the foundation of society. On the other hand the political, religious, philosophical and ideological relations etc. represent the superstructure, which rise upon the given base and is determined by the base. 2. ECONOMIC UNDERSTANDING OF BASE AND SUPERSTRUCTURE: Marxist philosophy used dialectic materialism and historical materialism as a way of interpretation of human civilisation, what is known as materialistic interpretation of history or socioeconomic interpretation of history. According to this theory, what happened in the society is created by materialistic or economic circumstances. What man has founded from the primitive age to till now, like religion, marriage system, art, culture, civilisation are all determined by the material or economic condition. For this reason Marx was of the opinion that economy is the base of all things. The economy of a given society determines its social, religious and cultural life. So we can say that civilisation of a particular stage entirely depend upon the economic condition or economic environment of that stage. For example, the economic environment of primitive age was based on slavery, that of feudalism in mediaeval age and of capitalism in the modern age. According to Marxist theory, in future a new economic condition will arise upon within the womb of modern capitalist society, which would replace the entire economic system of capitalism and establish a new economic system according to which the entire superstructure will be transformed into different shape [Joseph Stalin 1975; 25-39]. For Marx, the usage of social process of production determines the man's relation and their right in society. The mode of production, the relations of production and the means of productionall these construct the economic
The economy is a fundamental part of contemporary society; on that most sociologists agree. Besides being a social institution in its own right, it also contributes to the administrative, educational, ethical, legal, and religious organization of society; in short, the social superstructure. But the dynamic of this relationship and how it is determined is a matter of theoretical debate. The classical sociologists Marx, Durkheim, and Weber (as listed chronologically) were the first to explore the relationship between the economy and society in the nineteenth and early twentieth centuries; each developed differing viewpoints based on their respective theoretical positions. As will be detailed, Marx viewed the economy as the base that determines the social superstructure;
'Base and superstructure': definition and determination (Marxism and History, ch. 9|)
Marxism and History: A Critical Introduction , 1987
Examines Marx's claims for the determination of society's political and ideological 'superstructure' by its economic 'base' and assesses later Marxist discussions of this issue, including those by Shaw, Rader, Althusser, Anderson, Cohen and Godelier. Key issues include which elements make up the so-called 'economic' base and how historical materialism addresses the problems posed by the interpenetration of base and superstructure.
Philosophy of the Social Sciences, 2000
This article seeks to develop the Marxist conception of social structure by incorporating developments within critical realist philosophy. It rejects forms of economic determinism such as the base-superstructure model and those reconstructions-like Cohen's-that attribute primacy to productive forces in explaining history and society. It argues instead that society is the product of complex, often contradictory combinations of many different structures and mechanisms. They form a structural ensemble, hierarchically arranged, but where each element has its own dynamics and emergent powers. It concludes that society is best understood through critical realist conceptions of stratification, emergence, transformation, and overdetermination.