New Proposals: Journal of Marxism and Interdisciplinary Inquiry Vol. 5, No. 2 (May 2012) Pp. 20-50 Market Socialism as a Distinct Socioeconomic Formation Internal to the Modern Mode of Production Alberto Gabriele UNCTAD Francesco Schettino University of Rome ABSTRACT: This paper argues that, during the present historical period, only one mode of production is sustainable, which we call the modern mode of production. Nevertheless, there can be (both in theory and in practice) enough differences among the specific forms of modern mode of production prevailing in different countries to justify the identification of distinct socioeconomic formations, one of them being market socialism. In its present stage of evolution, market socialism in China and Vietnam allows for a rapid development of productive forces, but it is seriously flawed from other points of view. We argue that the development of a radically reformed and improved form of market social- ism is far from being an inevitable historical necessity, but constitutes a theoretically plausible and auspicable possibility. KEYWORDS: Marx, Marxism, Mode of Production, Socioeconomic Formation, Socialism, Communism, China, Vietnam Introduction o our view, the correct interpretation of the the most advanced mode of production, capitalism, presently existing market socialism system (MS) was still prevailing only in a few countries. Yet, Marx Tin China and Vietnam requires a new and partly confidently predicted that, thanks to its intrinsic modified utilization of one of Marx’s fundamental superiority and to its inbuilt tendency towards inces- categories, that of mode of production. According to sant expansion, capitalism would eventually embrace Marx, different Modes of Production (MPs) and dif- the whole world. ferent Social (or Social and Economic) Formations The Marxian concepts/categories of MP, SEF, (SEFs) can be identified in different historical periods socialism, and communism, are well known, yet not and in different parts of the world. In each territory always fully understood. A prime reason for this dif- and in each moment of time several MPs usually ficulty is their intrinsic intricacy and sophistication, coexist, but one of them can be considered to prevail made even harder to penetrate and even to identify on the others. In the long historical time, relative by the fact that these concepts can legitimately be stability predominates in some periods, while other interpreted in different ways and at different levels periods are characterized by the transition from one of theoretical abstraction and depth. Some of these prevalent MP to another one. During Marx’s lifetime, interpretations are quite intuitive but, inevitably, rela- MARKET SOCIALISM AS A DISTINCT SOCIOECONOMIC FORMATION • 21 tively superficial as well. rial base and reproduction of human civilizations over At a deeper level, each one of these terms, as very long periods of time: “A mode of production is a signifier, refers to a very complex and holistic an articulated combination of relations and forces signified, encompassing a number of epistemic of production structured by the dominance of the dimensions, such as the economic, the social, the relations of production” (Hindless and Hirst 1975:9). anthropological, the historical and the philosophical Therefore, it is a key category of historical material- one. Another reason, of course, is that (as it is the ism: “Marx’s dictum: ‘The relations of production case for most of his revolutionary theoretical con- of every society form a whole’ is the methodologi- tributions) Marx formulated the above-mentioned cal point of departure and the key to the historical concepts in the course of a lifelong, evolutionary, and understanding of social relations” (Lukács 1923). unfinished research endeavour (See Wood 1991). As The concept of MP appears early in the work a result, their meaning can at times be interpreted as of Marx. His subsequent production, while always context-specific in the overall economy of Marx’s attributing to the term a quite consistent meaning, scientific contribution. As a matter of fact, Marx would focus to varying degrees on one or another of himself was quite aware of the ultimately pioneering its multiple features and dimensions. and embryonic degree of theoretical development of In The German Ideology (1845), for instance, many of his ideas (especially in the cases of social- Marx refers to the MP as an ontological concept that ism and communism). In any case, it is an urgent is based on the material conditions of reproduction theoretical necessity to reinterpret and re-elaborate of human existence, yet also encompasses the totality these concepts in order to make them more suitable of individuals’ lives: to the understanding of the 21st century world, which This mode of production must not be considered is of course quite different from the one where Marx simply as being the production of the physical exis- and Engels lived – although some of their great intu- tence of the individuals. Rather it is a definite form itions and forecasts are proving to be still amazingly of activity of these individuals, a definite form of actual. expressing their life, a definite mode of life on their This paper is organized as follows. Section 1 part. … The nature of individuals thus depends on presents a brief review of the meaning attributed to the material conditions determining their produc- concepts such as MP, SEF, socialism, and commu- tion. [Marx 1845] nism by Marx and some his 20th century followers. In Manifesto (1848) Marx and Engels also refer We believe it can be instrumental in supporting the repeatedly to the concept of MP. A famous example preceding observations and in justifying the dis- is the passage where they state the revolutionary tinctive use of the terms MP, SF, and socialism in worldwide role of the bourgeoisie, which “com- the remainder of this paper, a task we undertake in pels all nations, on pain of extinction, to adopt the section 2. Section 3 discusses some alternative inter- bourgeois mode of production; it compels them to pretations of China’s contemporary socioeconomic introduce what it calls civilization into their midst, system. Section 4 concludes. i.e., to become bourgeois themselves. In one word, it creates a world after its own image” (Marx and The Marxian Concepts of Mode of Engels 1848, I). Production, Social Formation, Socialism, As is well known, the category of MP plays a and Communism: A Review central role in the preparatory work that eventually led to the elaboration of Capital – the Contribution The Concept of Mode of Production to the Critique of Political Economy – as well as Marx’s concept of mode of production (MP) is in Grundrisse and in Capital itself. In Grundrisse rooted in the specific form of interaction between Marx further develops the category of MP, striv- productive forces and social relations of production ing to establish it firmly in historical and empirical which holistically characterize and define the mate- analysis (see Kelch 2007). To this purpose, a chapter 22 • A. GABRIELE AND F. SCHETTINO is dedicated specifically to the “forms which pre- References to the MP, finally, are very numerous cede capitalist production,” i.e. to the pre-capitalist and crucial in Capital, where Marx focuses mostly MPs, stressing that they shared with capitalism their 1 on the economic dimension of the concept. The systemic nature (see Marx 1973:471). Then, Marx term MP is used in relation to a number of other key stresses the crucial “difference between the capi- Marxian concepts, such as commodity, accumulation, talist mode of production and all earlier ones,” its private and public property, the division of labour all-encompassing and universalizing tendency, and in manufacturing production, and the production of its ultimately transient nature: surplus-value.2 There appears here the universalizing tendency of capital, which distinguishes it from all previous The Concept of Socio-Economic Formation stages of production… it strives towards the uni- Marx refers to the concept of Socio-Economic versal development of the forces of production, and Formation (SEF) in a famous passage of the Preface thus becomes the presupposition of a new mode of to A Contribution to the Critique of Political Economy: production.… This tendency – which capital pos- In broad outline, the Asiatic, ancient, feudal and sesses, but which at the same time, since capital is modern bourgeois modes of production may be a limited form of production, contradicts it and designated as epochs marking progress in the hence drives it towards dissolution – distinguishes economic development of society. The bourgeois capital from all earlier modes of production, and mode of production is the last antagonistic form at the same time contains this element, that capi- of the social process of production - antagonistic tal is posited as a mere point of transition. [Marx not in the sense of individual antagonism but of 1973:540] an antagonism that emanates from the individuals’ In A Contribution to the Critique of Political social conditions of existence - but the productive Economy (1859), Marx again emphasizes the rela- forces developing within bourgeois society cre- tionship between MP, material reality and human ate also the material conditions for a solution of consciousness, and the transient nature of all MPs, this antagonism. The prehistory of human society 3 including the capitalistic one: accordingly closes with this social formation. [Marx 1859.] The totality of… relations of production consti- tutes the economic structure of society, the real Here, the concepts of SEF and MP are virtually foundation, on which arises a legal and political indistinguishable. Yet, room is left for subsequent superstructure and to which correspond definite interpretative approaches that – without undermin- forms of social consciousness. The mode of pro- ing the close relationship between the social and the duction of material life conditions the general economic spheres which constitutes one of the most process of social, political and intellectual life.