subroza

da Graca, Laura and Andrea Zingarelli 2015, “Introduction to Studies on Pre-Capitalist Modes of Production: Debates, Controversies and Lines of Argument” in da Graca, Laura and Andrea Zingarelli (eds.), Studies on Pre-Capitalist Modes of Production. Brill.

The 2015 collection of essays Studies on Pre-Capitalist Modes of Production, a collaboration between English and Argentine Marxist historians,  is unified in its contributors’ attempt to answer  central problem facing Marxist historiography: “one cannot comfortably pursue studies on classical social history if it is repeatedly alleged that the preoccupation with modes of production and transitions is outdated. Yet such is the atmosphere that has been created by fashionable scholars, and it imposes on us solitary navigations against the tide.”–just to be clear, is the problem that it is not accepted? Or that it is a solitary pursuit and that there is a lack of scholarly dialogue? The editors, Laura Da Graca and Andrea Zingarelli, see two further points of unification in the dialogue (dialog between what?). First, a disenchantment with the French marxist tradition and its “fascination” with the “phenomenological descriptions that never ceased to mesmerize them.” Second, a willingness to pursue honest and clear debate on the position(s) of the English and Argentine schools, which both works to decenter “a way-way flow of ideas… from the European nucleus into the Third World” and foster an intellectually rigorous, “pluralistic, democratic and leftist approach, far removed from the aristocratic elitism that has striven to colonize.”

The introduction, written by Da Graca and Zingarelli, serves the difficult role of contextualizing this dialogue. Serving as a navigational guide to the collection, it provides a concise overview of the major discussions and debates on (1) the modes of production and (2) the theoretical / epistemological problems these entail. On both questions, there is a dividing line between the participants which is best clarified from the start. According to Da Graca and Zingarelli, “the concept of mode of production” has been understood in two distinct ways: as either “the social configuration corresponding to certain relations of productive forces (an aspect deemed to less relevant or subordinated to relations of production)”; or, alternatively, “as a combination of productive forces and relations of production which express themselves by means of property relations.” The English historians, Chris Wickham and John Haldon, as well as Argentine ? Carlos Mac Gaw (thus showing the split is not merely geographical), derive the mode of production from “the relation of real appropriation” “of the means of production by direct producers.” The mode of production can therefore be understood as the primary form of labor exploitation and surplus extraction. On the other hand, the Argentinean historians Da Graca and Zingarelli contend that “property relations encompass the specific form of surplus appropriation.” 

This theoretical divide is further reflected in the terminology of modes of production. Scholars who prefer  to draw the idea of the mode of production from property relations tend to favor (and defend) the schematization provided by Marx and Engles: (1) The Primitive / Communistic, (2) The Asiatic, (3) The Germanic, (4) the Slave / Ancient, (5) The Feudal. By contrast, Wickham, Haldon, and Mac Gaw prefer to reformulate this schematization into broader categories. Most notably, they have developed the idea of the “Peasant Mode of Production” and the “Tributary Mode of Production.” One of the most helpful components of this introduction is the bibliographical discussion of the debates on modes of production. In pgs. 1-12, Da Garca and Zingarelli provide a synopsis of the major arguments and positions which have been developed since the 1960’s, a review which is particularly helpful due to the fact that these developments  have largely been ignored outside of Marxist historiography. Because this section is so valuable, a full annotated bibliography has been added at the end of this review (See below). Having the major theoretical positions on the Modes of Production, the editors provide a brief overview of the epistemological problems in which these concepts are situated. 

(a better logical connection with the previous paragraph is needed here. Maybe:) Another central point that the introduction raises is that , in order to use either conception of the “mode of production,” one must presuppose a certain “concept of social formation.” The authors chart this question – the problem of  how to conceptualize a “social whole” – back the debate between Lenin and Mikhailovsky. Again, in brief, this question might be restated for the sake of clarity as the question how to place individual components of social analysis (i.e. the rise of latifundia slavery after the Punic wars) in their context within society as a whole (i.e. Roman society in the Late Republic). How do we create accurate abstractions with which to understand history? To what extent does a mode of production (i.e. a slave society) reflect reality? Again, a difference of positions is taken by the scholars in this work. Following Lenin, Da Graca and Zingarelli argue that “the development of the concept of the capitalist mode of production as it appears in Capital – which Marx refers to as an ‘ideal average’ should guide the study of other societies… the model expresses the real and develops laws that govern its functioning.” In contrast, Wickham, Haldon, and Mac Gaw conceive of the mode of production as “an ideal type informing an essential nucleus that is common to a number of societies and constituted by a combination of relations of production and productive forces.” 

These contrastive perspectives are pursued throughout the book. The chapters which follow are committed to fleshing out these differing conceptions of a Marxist historiography of pre-capitalist societies: 

• Zingarelli, Andrea “The Asiatic mode of Production: Considerations on Ancient Egypt” (p. 27-76).
• Mac Gaw, Carlos García “The Slave Roman Economy and the Plantation System” (p. 77-111)
• Astarita, Carlos “Origins of Medieval Craftsman” (p. 112-140).
• Wickham, Chris “Passages to Feudalism in Medieval Scandinavia” (p. 141-157). 
• Da Graca, Laura “Peasant Mode of Production and the Evolution of Clientelar Relations” (p. 158-203). 
• Haldon, John “Mode of Production, Social Action, and Historical Change: Some Questions and Issues” (p. 204-236). 
• Simple Commodity Production and Value Theory in Late Feudalism” (p. 237-268).