DESCRIBE THE CAPITALIST MODE OF PRODUCTION.

HOW MARXIST THOUGHT IS DIFFERENT

FROM EARLY SOCIALISTS?

“The history of all hitherto existing society is the history of class struggles.”~ Marx

Marx contemplated that the essence of capitalism neither in a spirit of enterprise nor in the use of
money to finance a series of exchange transactions with the object of gain, but in a particular mode of
production.

Capitalist Mode of Production refers to a production system where the owners of means of production,
capitalists, extract surplus labor from the proletariat in the form of profits.
According to Marx, labour is the sole creator of value. Of the four elements of production, viz. land,
labour, capital and organization, three elements—land, capital and organization are sterile because they
are capable of reproducing only what is put in them. Labour is the only element which produces value in
society. In other words, the value of a commodity is the product of labour. The quantity of labour
employed in it should be calculated right from the production of the raw material, processing the raw
material, acquiring the sources of energy for its processing, and constructing the required machinery
and building for its production. The quantity of labour required in its production is also determined by
the average conditions of social production and the average skill of the labour employed.

The actual amount of labour employed in the production of a commodity is called its natural price. It
differs from its price in the market, or market price which fluctuates with the changing conditions of
demand and supply. In a free market society, fostered by capitalism, the worker is forced to sell his
labour at the market price. When more and more job-seekers come to the market place, the market
price of their labour, i.e. their wage-rate declines. Their employer— the capitalist exploits their full
potential to work but pays them only subsistence wages for their own and their families' sustenance.
Thus the value produced by the worker may be split into two parts;

 One part is paid to the worker toward his wages; the other part is pocketed by the capitalist as
his profit.
 This second part is described by Marx as 'surplus value'. Rent and interest are paid from the
surplus value.

In other words, surplus value denotes the value of the labour done by the worker for which he is not
paid at all; it forms part of the capitalist's profit, rent and interest on the sterile elements of production
(organization, land and capital). It is, therefore, a glaring example of the worker's exploitation under
capitalism.

Thus capitalism was not simply a system of production for the market a system of commodity-
production as Marx termed it but a system under which labor power had ‘itself become commodity’ and
was bought and sold on the market like any other object of exchange.
By mode of production he did not refer merely to the state of technique he termed the state of
productive forces, but to the way in which the means of production were owned and to the social
relations between men which resulted from their connections with the process of production.

DISTINCTION BETWEEN MARXIST AND EARLY SOCIALIST

Communism and socialism had some common roots, and initially shared a belief in the need to
introduce universal public ownership of the means of production.

A fundamental division emerged between those who supported revolution and those who favoured
evolutionary change. In the first category were people prepared to countenance violence in the pursuit
of their goals, in the second those who espoused a peaceful path to a socialist society. Communists who
favoured the violent overthrow of capitalism went on to justify the use of severe coercion to repress
internal critics of the system they had created. And socialists who preferred an evolutionary approach
gradually ceased to believe that they could build an entirely new system that would replace capitalism.

Under communism, there is no such thing as private property. All property is communally owned, and
each person receives a portion based on what they need. A strong central government—the state—
controls all aspects of economic production, and provides citizens with their basic necessities, including
food, housing, medical care and education. By contrast, under socialism, individuals can still own
property. But industrial production, or the chief means of generating wealth, is communally owned and
managed by a democratically elected government.

Another key difference between socialism and communism is the means of achieving them. In
communism, a violent revolution in which the workers rise up against the middle and upper classes is
seen as an inevitable part of achieving a pure communist state. Socialism is a less rigid, more flexible
ideology. Its adherents seek change and reform, but insist on making these changes through democratic
processes within the existing social and political structure, not overthrowing that structure.

Socialism also signifies a transitory state between Capitalism and Communism where the proletariat has
expropriated the means of production, but the state and alienation had not yet vanished. It arose as a
reaction against the social and economic condition generated in Europe by the growth of industrial
capitalism.

Charles Fourier and Pierre-Joseph Proudhon were also significant figures in the development of
nineteenth-century socialist thought. Fourier wished to retain private property, but he envisaged work
in the future being carried out by co-operatives, government being reduced to economic administration,
a single language being used by all humankind, and people’s personalities liberated from the form of
‘slavery’ which he attributed to hired labour. Marx however, believed that the ‘property is theft’. He
believed that social harmony was the natural state of affairs and that it was the existing economic
system that prevented its flourishing. He was not, for the most part, an advocate of revolutionary
struggle.
Marx, however, made it clear that the Communists espoused a revolutionary brand of socialism, and he
was dismissive of the utopian socialists and earlier ‘communists’ who did not see what he and Engels
believed was not only the necessity, but also the inevitability, of proletarian revolution.

CONCLUSION

The way out is the revolution that will overthrow the existing capitalist mode of production by the
communist mode of production. Marx believed that the capitalism harboured inherent contradictions
due to which it was doomed to collapse. On one hand capitalism has higher development of forces of
production on the other hand, within them exist most efficient forms of class exploitation and highest
development of human alienation. Because the workers are paid so poorly, their purchasing power will
be limited, causing overproduction and under consumption leading to periodic crises. These self-
contradictions in capitalism will lead to crumbling of such system under its own pressure, thought Marx.
The annihilation of capitalism will give way to socialism.

In the Socialist mode of production state/ public ownership would replace private ownership of major
means of production, conscious public planning would replace the anarchy of capitalist decision making,
and social equality would progressively replace class inequality. Marx believed that when the polemics
in the society will reach its extreme, revolution will become inevitable. Following that, the proletariats
class will seize power establishing ‘the dictatorship of the proletariat’. Socialism will be a transitory stage
leading to establishment to communist society. This society will be a classless, non- exploitative society
in which the state will wither away. There will be equal opportunities for all, and enough for everyone.
The guiding principle will be “from each according to his abilities, to each according to his needs”.
NOTES

Its historical prerequisite was the concentration of ownership of the means of production in the
hands of a class, consisting of only a minor section of society, and consequential emrergence of
a property-less class for whom the sale of their labor power was their only source of livelihood.

Productive activity was furnished, accordingly, by the latter, not by virtue of legal compulsion
but on the basis of a wage contract.

“The distinguishing feature of capitalist organization of industry is the possession of the

materials by the employer, who engages the workman and pays his wages and subsequently
makes profit.” ~ Cunningham

There was hence, no divorce between ownership and work, and except where Marx relied to
any extent on the employment of the journeymen, it was the purchase and sale of inanimate
wares and not of human labor power that was his primary concern.

The existence of trade and of moneylending and the presence of a specialized class of
merchants or financers does not suffice to constitute a capitalist society. Men of capital,
however, acquisitive are not enough; their capital must be used by labor to creation of surplus
value in production.

/////////////////////////////

Common Ownership and Collectivisation

Many literatures of early communists reflected on the idea of common possession. All economic
resources are publicly owned and controlled by the government. Individuals hold no
personal property or assets. Individuals can own personal property but all industrial and
production capacity is communally owned and managed by a democratically elected
government.

Generally, most of the political regimes that call themselves socialist or follow state socialism organise
themselves as one party state. It means that these states are ruled by a single political party. Communist
systems employ huge bureaucracy to carry on their political and economic agenda. Over all, the system
lacks transparency, and covert operations are carried out to strictly control the state and society.
Communist systems employ huge bureaucracy to carry on their political and economic agenda. Over all,
the system lacks transparency, and covert operations are carried out to strictly control the state and
society.
Centralisation of government became an essential political character of all communist societies.
Resultantly, the power became highly concentrated in the hands of an elite group who furthered their
interest in the name of maintaining socialism.

Central Planning and Economy

One of the generic features of socialist political systems has been to have a highly regulated economy. It
meant state ownership of major means of production, including banks, factories, large farms etc. Central
planning was adopted to bring the desired change in economy

however, there was a tension between socialists who believed in the importance of parliamentary
means and those for whom revolutionary class struggle was a higher priority.

‘communism’ was to be a later stage in the development of society – the ultimate stage – in which the
institutions of the state would have ‘withered away’ and would have been replaced by a harmonious,
self-administering society

twentieth century socialism came to be associated more with the welfare state, and with step-by-step
improvements in the living conditions of the majority of citizens, than with an entirely new social order.

Socialism, Engels says, was in 1847 a middle-class movement, but Communism was a working-class the
idea of communism movement. Socialism, in continental Europe, had become respectable; Communism
was not respectable.

The main difference is that under communism, most property and economic resources are owned
and controlled by the state (rather than individual citizens). While under socialism, all citizens share
equally in economic resources as allocated by a democratically-elected government.

Among the early advocates of this field, More provided subtle critique of private property and favoured
a fair distribution of goods to create a harmonious society. Saint Simon believed that free economic
competition produced poverty and crisis. Charles Fourier showed his conviction in co-operatives and
communes. He thought that government’s work should be restricted to economic administration only.
The extreme view was taken by Joseph Pierre Proudhon who offered scathing criticism of private
property and called it a kind of theft.

Marx saw capitalist society as unequal and unjust society which flourished at the cost of the working
class. The dynamics of industrial capitalism produces two classes: the capitalist class and the working
class. The capitalist class owns the mode of production and expropriates the resources of the society to
further its own interests. The goal of the capitalist or bourgeoisie class lies in maximising its profit or
surplus generated by exploiting the working or proletariat class. The working class is compelled to slog
for long working hours, have no share in the surplus, and lose all control over their creativity and their
lives. This leads to alienation in the working class. Since the interests of both these classes are hostile to
each other, there is ongoing class war in capitalist societies. This is explicit in the famous lines of Karl
Marx, as he says the history of all societies hitherto is the history of class struggle. In other words,
Marxism argued that history is narration of class struggle between two diagonally opposite classes. It is
the private property which is the malefactor and responsible for all social divisions and exploitation in
the society. Individual ownership is despised as it leads to an unequal and oppressive social order.
Industrial way of life in Western Europe has been the exemplifier of this reality. In fact, Marx thought
that bourgeoisie class’ control is so encompassing that the state also acts as the “executive committee
of the ruling Bourgeoisie”. Therefore once he said that “the theory of communism may be summed up
in one sentence: “Abolish all private property.”