103

Toward a Marxist Theory of Transition

Chuck Smith

This essay attempts to do two things: 1) to familiarize the reader

with certain theoretical concepts (problematic, mode of production, social

formation, historical conjuncture, class struggle; 2) to further the

process of theorization of these concepts in order that they may be further

elaborated and more fruitfully applied to the study and propagation of

large scale social change. Such an approach is utilized by the writer as

the method of theoretical analysis in the study of colonial social formations.

The basic thesis I wish to put forward is that, the elaboration of the

concepts mode of product ion, social formation and class struggle will lead

to the building up of an adequate conceptual framework for understanding

and changing man's social relations.

The key concepts mode of production and social formation are formulated

and utilized in such varied ways that they often have very different meanings.

This is not merely a matter of 'semantics' since these varied conceptualizations

often lead to radically different theories and practises in determinate

concrete situations, rather than being a question of semantics this is a

theoretical divergence which at least in the first instance centers on what

Althusser calls problematics. That is the underlying structure of knowledge

which renders possible the raising of certain questions in a particular

form while ruling out certain other questions as unsuitable. To ask questions

(even the right ones) is not the same as answering them. Yet one's theoretical

perspective is very much a reflection of one's problematic. Following from

this, the main questions I wish to raise, concern the theoretical status of

the concept mode of production and the manner in which it exists in actu within

concrete social formations given, specific conditions of existence (material

conditions) and specific class struggle or class struggles, social relations

and a specific historical conjuncture. Within the context of modes of

production it seems that many of the varying positions and differences of

opinion arise precisely from the manner in which the concept is employed and



104

questions are posed. As Cardoso points out, Marx, from whom the concept

mode of production is derived was himself less than instructive since he

used "mode of production" ambiguously encompassing at least three distinct

meanings (with possible combinations): the first refers in a descriptive

way simply- to ways of producing; the second to a series of modes of

production which become dominant in particular regions and periods and

which define "progressive epochs" in the evolution of history (e.g. feudalism

and capitalism); and thirdly, secondary modes of production which never

become dominant "e.g. petty bourgeois modes, peasant small-holding modes".

One can clearly recongize all three tendencies in Marx but I do not agree

with Cardoso's conclusion that one must move from such a categorization to

the concrete study of the evolutionary process of the totality of the

European mediterranean area in order to Tathom capitalism as the first

universal mode of production which then dissolves previous modes of production."

Rather I believe one must begin with a reading which spells out the relation

between the whole and its parts , as Althusser proposes in this case between

a dominant and other modes of production.

Before doing so, it is necessary to provide a definition of a mode

of production at the most abstract level. I believe that with some

modifications the basic problematic proposed by Balibar can be retained.

Following the classic Althusserian conception one can discern a pattern of

invariants encompassing: 1) labourer (always labour power within the CM. P.);

2) means of production (the object and instruments [means} of labour)

3) non-labourer (appropriating surplus value in one or more of its component

parts). These invariants are held together by two connections (relations),

1) relations of real appropriation, and 2) relations of property. The former

refers to the appropriation of nature by man, or the real material

appropriation of the means of production by the producer in the labour process,

i.e. the production process. This concept approximates the classical Marxist

notion of forces of production encompassing raw materials and other subjects

of labour, the labour process and object of labour (commodities) but

explicitly manifests effects on the other (superstructural) elements.

Within the context used relation 1) also refers to the ability and skill

of the non-worker appropridting surplus to set the labour process in motion.



105

The latter (property) relation in the combination, refers to more than

legal property, rather it includes use/enjoyment as well as (legal)

"property strictly speaking", the process of exploitation of labour within

the ensemble of social and technical relations. It approximates relations
3

of production, as used in Capital .

Balibar then goes on to complete the picture by introducing the

concept of determination in the last instance by the economy. Of the three

inter-related structures, (otherwise called levels, elements , instances or

moments ) economic, political-legal, ideological the economy is determinant

in that it determines which of the instances of the social structure

occupies the dominant place. Dominance refers back to Althusser's

definition of over-determination...

"It is the manifestation of the structure in dominance that
unifies the whole. This reflection of the conditions of
existence of the contradiction within itself, this reflection
of the structure articulated in dominance that constitutes
the unity of the complex whole within each contradiction ,
this is the most profound characteristic of the Marxist
dialectic." 5

The structure in dominance then provides the main determinant of the

effectivity of material conditions and defines the primary conditions of

existence of class struggle and other social forms. Determination in the

last instance, must be interpreted as determination by 'economic' material

conditions, through a dominant instance. As Balibar states in his self

criticism.

"The economic aspect (the 'economic' class struggle) is only
one of these aspects Cof class struggle], unevenly developed,
unevenly decisive according to historical conjunctures, and
never capable of producing revolutionary effects by itself .
Which by no means rules out , but on the contrary demands
that in all historical periods , whatever the dominant mode
of production and whatever the conjuncture, the ensemble of
the class struggle is still determined by the 'economic'
material conditions. "^

That is, the structures, define the conditions of existence of a class

struggle which expresses an effectivity at the level of a transformation

of the structures. Change is never necessary in a teleological sense but



106

mutually conditioned and determined by the ongoing process of the structures

combined with the specific events of class struggle. As Pouiantzas points

out each structure operates in its own connected yet distinct 'region' of

practise, within a mode of production. The political exists as a

specific level but also as the crucial level in which the contradictions

of a social formation are reflected and condensed. Political practise

has as its specific object the present moment, the nodal point where

the contradictions of the various levels of a formation are condensed in

the complex relations governed by overdetermination and by their dislocation

and uneven development. The problem of state power arises inside the

structure of several levels dislocated by uneven development. The state

has the particular function of constituting the factor of cohesion between

the levels of a social formation. The struggle for control of the state,

class struggle, operates along complex lines of development. Following

Gramsci, Pouiantzas posits dominant classes with specific hegemonic fractions

engaged in compromises and power alliances with popular classes and fractions,

whose power is reflected in ideological and repressive state apparatuses,

generally reflected by the reigning class (upper levels of the state and

corporate bureaucratic hierarchy) and manifested in all the structural levels

especially ideology. For Pouiantzas, unlike Gramsci, agents are tied to

the reproduction of the positions occupied by a social class.

"We are faced with a series of relations between apparatuses,
whose roots are deep in the class struggle. In other words
the primary distribution of agents is tied to the primary
reproduction of the positions occupied by social classes.
According to the stages and phases of the social formation,
that primary distribution assigns to a given apparatus or
series of apparatuses its own proper role which it is to play
in distributing agents."'

During a revolutionary conjuncture or period of transition the possibility

exists for radical changes in the primary distribution of agents and the

role of the various apparatuses in the distribution of agents may in fact be

drastically altered or in extreme cases the apparatuses themselves eliminated.



107

Further elaboration of the concept of mode of production can now be

made on the basis of these formulations. Hindess and Hirst very clearly

define the structure of the unity of the two relations (property and real

appropriation). They define mode of production as an articulated

combination of relations of production and forces of production structured
8

by the dominance of relations of production. Relations of production,

define a specific mode of appropriation of surplus labour and the specific

form of social distribution of the means of production corresponding to

that mode of appropriation of surplus labour. Furthermore the distribution

of agents to the positions labourer/non-labourer is seen as a function of

the social distribution of the means of production. In fairness to Hindess

and Hirst they do not attempt to do this outside of their rather inclusive

study of specific modes of production.

Hindess and Hirst specifically define forces of production as the

subject of work (raw materials, etc.), the labour process (personal activity

of man) and its instruments. This is a vast inprovement over the all too

prevalent ambiguity in the use of the term production by many Marxists.

For example "Pierre-Philippe Rey quotes a passage from Marx wherein the

term production is used in a context referring to mode of production. This

is not clear in Rey's presentation where this term might easily be mistaken

for productive forces.

"In all forms of society, it is a determined production and
the relations engendered by it which assigns to all other
productions and relations engendered by them, their level
and their importance. "9

Similarly Terray even more incorrectly posits that the instruments

of labour are determinant in the enumeration and identification of the indices

of a mode of production present, i.e. the order of investigation Hindess

and Hirst wisely ignore Terray' s formulation and extend that of Rey to

preclude any definition of forces of relations of production independently

of the mode of production in which they are combined. Yet despite their

apropos criticisms of certain technicist notions, Hindess and Hirst carry

their articulated combination of forces and relations of production too far,

i.e. to the point of denying the specific effectivity of forces of production



108

as a social relation. In their attempt to deduce the productive forces

from the concept of mode of appropriation, Hindess and Hirst establish a

direct relationship between mode of appropriation, dominant instance and

class struggle which bypasses the forces of production subsumed in this

articulated combination, and denegates the labour process. In such a

forroalistic deductive connection the possibility of a contradictory

relation between the forces and relations of production virtually disappears

in the articulated combination such that it is hard to envisage how such

a construct can avoid reproducing its conditions of existence. ** More will

be said on this in relation to the question of transition and class

struggle.

To avoid possible ambiguities it is necessary to clearly define

relations of production. As mentioned such a definition must include

appropriation of the product or some portion of it by the labourer and

appropriation of the surplus labour by the non-labourer. Following Poulantzas

.

relations of production in class society, can be viewed as a double relation

encompassing man's relations to nature in material production.

"These two relations are relations first between men and

other men - class relations, and secondly between the

agents of production and the object and means of labour -

the productive forces. These two relations thus concern

the relation of the non-worker (the owner-director) to the

object and means of labour. These relations involve two

aspects (a) economic ownership: by this is meant the real

economic control of the means of production, i.e. the power

to assign the means of production to given uses and so to

dispose of the products obtained (b) Possession: by this

is meant the capacity to put the means of production into

operation."12

Ernesto Laclau, posits a similar hierarchical definition of a means

of production as an

"integrated complex of social productive forces and relations

linked to a determinate type of ownership of the mean^ of

production
- ownership of means of production are essential relations

among the ensemble of relations of production.
- logically and mutually co-ordiri<itcd articulation of

1. determinate type of ownership of moans of production

2. determinate form of appropriation of economic surplus

3. determinate degree of development of the division of labour



109

•*. determinate development of productive forces
... a totality defined by itLi mutual interconnections. Within this
totality, property in means of production constitutes the decisive
element ."13

I will assume here that property refers both to legal property and the

ability to set the labour process into motion (as noted cf. Balibar) , not

necessarily combined. My main criticism of this formulation and the

similar less explicit concept used by Hindess and Hirst is that it's logic

is basically economistic. Property in means of production is the key

element in the chain of determination which does not leave enough scope

for the mutual inter-relation between the economic and its effects on the

other levels which are reflected back in the form of the effects of the

other levels on the economic as part of the totality of a mode of production

or even co-existing modes structured by some form of dominance. If the

economy is determinate it is because property in means of production and

the other relations of production articulate with forces of production

(as a social relation) and all oth^jr social relations and their effects at

the level of determinant practises.

In other words no hard and fast connection can be assigned to property

in the means of production or other relations of production whereby certain

productive forces and/or certain political, ideological or economic structures

might inevitably be deduced. Rather I prefer to consider these other

elements as social relations which act upon and are acted upon by property

relations.

One must logically begin with real appropriation or the the forces

of production. What does it mean to say that the forces of production

consitute a social relation? I believe that this problem has for the most

part been inadequately dealt with as a problem within Marxist theory.

Despite these large gaps and silences I should like to offer some tentative

k *u I
1*

hypotheses

.

If one considers first of all the subject of labour (raw materials

etc.) one sees that they are almost inseparable from the overall dominant

relations of production. The distribution, exchange, circulation and

consumption of the subject of labour are moments in the overall totality



110

of social relations which may involve a whole chain of agents in an

extended series of social relations. If one considers the capitalist

mode of production (CM. P.) it is undeniable that it expands the scale

and scope of operations to secure a regular and cheap supply of raw

materials often from pre capitalist rrodes of production which may

subsequently become part of a world capitalist system of trade relations.

Much debate has gone on as to the need for the CM. P. to expand into all

parts of the globe. Colonization and imperialism are often said to arise

by necessity from the inherent tendency of the CM. P. to expand. While a

detailed review of such debates arc beyond the scope of this essay, I

would like to put forward the position (in essence that of Bukharin) that

capitalism profits from the super exploitation of non-capitalist areas

but does not need them in an absolute sense to continue as a system.

That is the appropriation of raw materials is not determined by the

dominant relations of production but is rather a discrete moment in the

totality of interdependent social relations structured by the economic

instance in a complex fashion (in the sense that theory and the real need

not correspond directly). Capitalism may not need to expand outside of its

own system but will do so if apportunities for profit (an integral part of

the system of capitalist relations) are presented.

Productive forces encompassed within the second level that of the

organization of the labour process also constitutes a social relation.

This is true in the sense that the form and extent of co-operation among

workers and between workers and supervisors often are conditioned if not

wholly determined by the level of productive forces as well as by relations

of production in the strict sense. Also the part played by the non-labourer

may have some direct bearing on the reproduction/non reproduction of a given

mode of production.

Finally technology itself is never completely neutral. The tool or

machine arises within a certain context and serves certain functions. In

the case of military technology it might serve either to defend existing

institutions or to overthrow them. Such a role is not simply a function of

the level of culture, science, production of commodities, or general affluence,



Ill

at least in the short run as the Mongol invasions of China illustrate.

Similarly communications networks often manifest an effectivity on the

nature of economic organization. In an extremely evolved form, given a

determinate mode of production such networks may drastically change the

nature of work and types of work needed. An obvious example is automation

or cybernetics, in which technology originally developed for use in

communications networks have entered and in fact revolutionized production.

Similarly energy sources prove more or less efficient and operable over

time and the viability of certain types of energy may come to depend on

extra costs incurred by resource depletion.

Another factor is that in any given mode of production the organization

of the labour process, has certain ideological and political manifestations,

as well as reflecting ideology and politics. For example the increasing

organic composition of capital can serve to render certain occupations

redundant, replacing workers by machines thus changing the nature of the

previous social structure. The level of the productive forces is to some

extent a reflection of the structure of demand itself conditioned by the

totality. Also rhythms of family life and popular culture reflect the

nature of the productive forces in a distillation of effects from the

totality of practises. Thirdly there is a reciprocal determination

(conditioned by the structure) between elements such as: the transfer of

the social product; distribution of social labour; levels and amount of

consumption and the nature of technical relations; raw materials available;

the type and extent of supervision and the scale of production within a

given conjucture, which determines what commodities are producible and in

what quantities.

1 am not arguing that the forces of production are autonomous, but

rather that their intervention with respect to the other practices should

never be ignored or underplayed. The relations of production are determinate

as Marx points out in the last chapter of Vol. 1 of Capital but specific

forces corresponding to those relations are not as simply and unilaterally

deducible from the latter as Hindess and Hirst would have it. The two are

inseparably tied together as each can and does manifest determination and

effectivity upon the other. What is necessary as a precondition is that



112

Balibar's three invariants (the labourer, means of production, non labourer)

be present. In such a case changes in the social relations of production

must ensue for the mode of production to change. Generally speaking

changes in productive relations will precede changes in productive forces.

As Marx pointed out attempts by English systematic colonizers to export

capitalist agriculture to virtually uninhabited new lands like Swan River

failed to also export English productive relations. Wage workers faced

with free land (access to means of production) did not remain workers for

long. They quickly became petty bourgeois farmers on their own. In many

cases though .the introduction of new productive forces from a more developed

mode of production will quickly transform existing productive relations.

Witness the rapid transformation of underdeveloped countries today when

industrialization takes place.

So as one can see it is sometimes the case that changes in the

productive forces preced a transformation of the relations of production

and create a new articulated combination of forces and relations encompassing

a transformed mode of production. In such cases it is necessary for the old

productive relations to change in accordance with new technological possibilities.

If such change is not forthcoming then total transformation cannot occur.

It is for this reason that despite technological innovations, phenomena such

as the "industrial revolution of the sixteenth century" proved chimerical in

terms of sustained growth and development.

One must also keep in mind that within any particular social formation

various modes of production often co-exist and that the articulated combination

of forces and relations of production have to be viewed within the context of

a world economy, a complex structure of complex structures which delimits but

does not define modes of production. As Bettelheim puts it "the development

of the productive forces in every country is to some extent conditioned by

world production relations. Furthermore, within social formations social

relations of production determine distribution relations (as noted by Terray).

• Thus attempts to define capitalism in terms of commercial factors alone cannot

prove theoretically feasible. It is not the instance of circulation or

commerce which is determinate but that of production within a given social



113

context. That is consumption and circulation, the salto mortale of

commodities is determined by what can economically be produced and the

historically determined needs and wherewithal available to consumers.

In other words the articulated combination relations/forces of production

manifests a certain effectivity upon the political and ideological

s^tructures which in turn reflect prevalent ideology and superstructural

controls or effects upon the moment of production i.e. the economic base.

So to reiterate, it is the totality of the mode of production which is

determined in the last instance by the economy and upon which the effects

of the practises intervenes generally, mediated by the dominant practise

or practises. The conditions of existence of a mode of production must

be thought of in terms of the demarcation of that mode of production by

the global effect of the structures on social relations. This cannot be

equated with the labourer/non-labourer distinction nor even the delimilation

of classes with regard to the economic, which Poulantzas defined as,

"... classes with regard to the "economic" includes the following
relations

:

- relations of production, in the strict sense: producer/owner
of the means of production.

- relations of distribution of social labour: producer/producer.
- relations of the transfer of the social product: producer/producer.
These relations are dependent on the combination of the two
economic relations, real appropriation and property, and so
refer to the organization of the labour process and to the
division of labour . "^^

Rather the global effect of the structures on social relations must encompass

the notion of social classes.

Social classes must be seen as " the result of the ensemble of the

structures of a mode of production and a social formation, and to the

relations which are maintained there by the different levels - 1. economic -

2. political - 3. ideological. Social classes thus manifest themselves

(not inside the structure) but entirely as the " global effect of the

structures in the field of social relations" . Poulantzas then goes on to

define social relations of production as,



114

"- relations among agents of production distributed in
social classes, i.e. class relations. In other words, the
" social" relations of production , class relations, manifest
themselves at the economic level, as an effect of this
specific combination: agents of production/material-technical
conditions of labour (real appropriation, C.S.) constituted
by the relations of production . "17

Now Polantzas posits social relations, the distribution of supports (agents)

to social classes as distinct from structures,

"In social relations, the relations of production correspond
to the social relations of production: but we can also
speak in all strictness of political "social" relations and
of ideological "social" relations. These social relations,
as class relations, isolated here with respect to the instances
of the political and the ideological, manifest themselves as
the effect of the political and ideological structures on
social relations. The different instances therefore mark
levels and degrees in structures and at the same time in
social relations ."18

I believe all this can be interpreted to mean that the conditions

of existence of a mode of production are delimited by social classes and

other social relations, (political and ideological) themselves the result

of the global effect of the structures. Thus before a mode of production

can be transformed, its conditions of existence must cease to be operable.

At this point I believe one must reject Poulantzas' structural causality

and posit at least the possibility of historical agents playing a direct

autonomous and unpredetermined role in their conditions of life within the

context of a given class struggle acted out within a specific set of

historically determined parameters with differing degrees of freedom at

the level of structures and the institutions. Take for example the institution

of the family. Here one generally finds hierarchically ordered social

relations which display a definite character or effectivity conditioned by

the ideological, political and economic structures. The family, the school,

the peer group, the community etc all play a role in structuring social

relations i.e. socialization, and other such mechanism for the placement of

agents into differing structural positions. Yet all these institutions

operate with a certain degree of relative autonomy and their exact nature can

never be equivocally deduced from the structures. One might then argue that



115

it is not whether a particular agent occupies a particular structure that

is the most important issue, but rather the limitations imposed upon any

agent occupying a particular position are fundamentally more important.

I would agree with this given the important exception of transitional

conjunctures where fundamental changes often of a revolutionary nature

become possible.

These issues, of course, can not be resolved at the level of modes

of production but must be theorized within additional concepts providing

further approximations of the real. At a slightly less ethereal level I

should like to introduce the concept of a social formation. A social

formation closely corresponds with the ideological notion of a society,

but since 'a society has no rigorous, clearly defined generally accepted

theoretical position, the term is of dubious conceptual value. Thus, I

prefer to use the term social formation defined as the articulated combination

of structures within co-existing modes of production or more specifically,

"The social formation itself constitutes a complex unity in
which a certain mode of production dominates the others which

compose it... The dominance of one mode of production over the
others in a social formation causes the matrix of this mode

of production (i.e. the particular reflection of determination
by the economic element in the last instance by which it is
specified) to mark the whole of the formation. In this way a
historically determined social formation is specified by a
particular articulation (through an index of dominance and
over-determination) of its different economic, political
ideological and theoretical levels or instances. As a
general rule, taking account of the dislocations which will
be encountered, this articulation is that of the dominant
mode of production. "19

A significantly different definition is offered by Hindess and Hirst.

For them,

"'Social formation'... designates a complex structure of social
relations, a unity of economic, ideological and in certain
cases, political structural levels in which the role of the
economy is determinant. It is determinant in the sense that
the conditions of existence of the dominant relations of
production assign to each of the levelr, a certain form of
effectivity dnd a mode ut intervention with regard to the
other levels . If the dominant relations of production are
antagonistic, involving a social division of labour between
a class of labourers and a class of non- labourers, then the
social formation contains a state and a political level as
the necessary space of representation of the antagonistic
classes. "20



116

They also specify that,

"... the structure of the social formation is not deducible

from the concept of its determinant mode of production.

The conditions of existence of a particular mode of production

prescribe the limits of variation in the structures of the

economic, political and ideological levels if the mode of

production is to survive. Thus the structure of the economic

level of a particular social formation must be governed by

a variant or set of variants of a determinate mode of

production but it may also include certain elements of other

modes - provided only that the presence of these elements

does not contradict the conditions of existence of the

dominant relations of production. ...the presence of a

particular mode of production is not sufficient to secure

the reproduction of its conditions of existence. ...The

economic, political and ideological conditions of existence

of the mode of production are secured, modified, or transformed

as the outcome of specific class struggles conducted under

the particular conditions of the economic, political and

ideological levels of the social formation. The particular

structure of economic political and ideological conditions

in the social formation determines the possible outcomes of

the class struggle conducted under such conditions ."21

Both Poulantzas and Hindess and Hirst seem to be in basic agreement

that a social formation operates under a particular articulation conditioned

by dominance and overdetermination originating at the economic level of the

dominant mode of production. But more importantly the relations between

conditions of existence, dominant mode of production and the possible outcome

of class struggle (conjuncture) are not adequately theorized. Hindess and

Hirst seem to move further in this respect than anyone else I know of, but

there are still problems. For if the conditions of existence prescribe the

limits of variation in the structures and the reproduction of the conditions

of existence are secured, modified or transformed by the outcome of class

struggles conducted under the particular economic, political and ideological

levels of the social formation then we seem to have at least the hint of

a vicious circle. Crudely speaking the formula seems to go like this

Class struggle (conditioned by the structures) secures, modifies

or transforms conditions of existence. prescribes limits of

variation in the structure.



117

If class struggle which is conditioned by the structures secures

or transforms the conditions of existence of a M.P. or S.F. which

prescribes limits to the structures, then the structures are both determined

and determinate. Or from another angle, is it possible for class struggle

to secure the conditions of existence of a M.P. and thus prescribe limits

of variation to the structures if it is itself 'conditioned' by the

structures? Clearly the outcome of any given class struggle cannot be

pre-determined by the nature of the structures. Ample demonstration of this

is expressed by the varied nature of revolutionary conjunctures as well as

the lack of success by historians and sociologists in finding universal

causal variables to explain revolutions. Nevertheless class struggle does

take place within limits set by the social formation and its conditions

of existence. For example it is necessary to posit capitalist productive

forces or post capitalist ones (even if they must be rapidly developed)

before the socialist mode of production could exist. That is, an adequate

surplus to satisfy the needs of all including those not directly engaged in

production must exist. Theoretically one is left in a position where it is

class struggle which determines the reproduction, non-reproduction of a

social formation but it is the economic, political and ideological conditions

in the social formation which determines the possible outcome of class

struggle conducted under these conditions (conjuncture) and yet class struggle

itself indirectly prescribes limits of variation upon the structures. How

then do class struggles come about? Even when the conditions of class struggle

i.e. non-reproduction of the conditions of existence of a mode of production

are met, what is the spark which sets off the powder keg? Or even, is such a

revolutionary catalyst (the spark) necessary? If so what is the role of the

party, the intellectual, trade unions etc within the conjuncture? Also what

of the premature revolutionary attempt? Perhaps it is unfair to pose these

questions outside of a specific conjuncture but the point is, what theoretical

tools are available for an analysis of these questions. The best answers available

are contingent upon some notion of social classes. That is, given HindcCo

and Hirst's guidelines concerning class antagonism as the representation of



118

antagonistic relations of production at the political level, then class

struggle becomes crystallized within the state which exemplifies the

political level in all modes of production they deal with, (except

primitive communism before the gentile constitution). At the level of

social formations and conjunctures if not even at the level of modes of

production one must also incorporate civil society into the political

moment. It is at this broadly political level that transition takes place.

The role of the party is to channel revolutionary energy, to organize to

provide the spark at the right time etc. I do not see this as a zero sum

total game but rather as an ongoing revolutionary process where the party

must not only direct but also learn from and reflect the energies of the

labouring class. At the level of the social formation one finds a

multiplicity of class and status groups or fractions of class and the

necessity for coalitions against the hegemonic bloc arises. It is any

mention of such a revolutionary process which is missing in Hindess and

Hirst, Poulantzas and Balibar and it is at this level that the work of
22

Pierre-Philippe Rey provides a useful counterpoint. It is also at this

level the role of the individual and specific institutions are most relevant

and least pre-determined.

There still remains the problem of how one conceptualizes a social

formation. It is one thing to define social formation as "historically

determined as a particular object" or as a real concrete object as Poulantzas

23
does. It is quite another thing to formulate immanent tendencies with

the social formation of a particularly constituted object. If Bismarck's

Germany, France under Louis Bonaparte, England during the industrial
24

revolution and infinite other possibilities constitute a social formation

then what if any is their common denominator? The presence of a state in

class societies seems to be one very loose indicator but clearly the

conception social formation does not imply the necessity of a state.

Similarly the "ideological" notion of a society does not really explain

anything but merely gives a name to some kind of loosely knit social

organisation.

One is then left with a choice, determination by the dominant mode

of production which structures the articulation (Poulantzar?) or determination

by the dominant economic structure within the* dominant mode more specifically



119

dominant relations of production/possession separation from the means of

production) (Hindess and ilirst). If one chooses the dominance of one mode

of production which produces complex effects of dissolution or conservation

on the other M.P.'s which give these societies their character as does

Poulantzas then one cannot also posit a social formation as a concrete
25

society at a given moment of time; since articulation of M.P.'s is itself

a theoretical concept which has not as yet approximated the level of the

concrete.

My preference is to posit as Hindess and Hirst do a combination of

reciprocally determined and determining elements of possibly more than one

M.P. structured by the determinate nature of the economic level of the

dominant variant or set of variants of a determinate mode of production.

The presence of some or even all of the elements of a mode of production

does not in any way necessitate that this M.P. will reproduce itself. In

my view it is possible that not all the elements of a particular M.P. even

the dominant one in a social form£ition need be present in some sort of

necessary unity. One might sometimes find a feudal political level articulated

with a capitalist economic level and perhaps some sort of mixed ideological

level. It is not my intention to specify such combinations but I merely

want to specify the possibility of such combinations within a social formation.

This brings one back to the question of transition. Is it possible

to have more than one ruling class within the same social formation? Is there

an expecially unstable period within the conjucture where a dominant M.P.

no longer exists and one can discern a 'transitional* mode of production?

This is an area which has often been left untheorized in the literature on

social formations. For example, take the third step in Godelier's definition

of a social formation.

"3) define the exact form and content of the articulation and
combination of these various modes of production in a
hierarchical order, insofar as one mode of production dominates
the others, and in some way -subjects them to the needs and logic
of its own mode of functioning , and integrates them, more or
less , in the mechanism of its own reproduction." (italics C.S.)26



120

The silence expressed here by the more or less speaks volumes.

Clearly if the dominant M.P. structured the social formation in a rigid

hierarchical determination then the effectivity of class struggle within

the social formation would become problematic, except as a reflection

of the antagonistic nature of the labourer/non-labourer classes within

the dominant M.P. Such a notion would exclude class alliances, obfuscate

fractions, in short become a practical absurdity.

I do not believe that this is Godelier's intention, in which case

the reproduction/non-reproduction of the hierarchically articulated

social formation is relegated to the 'in some way' in which the dominant

M.P. subjects subordinate M.P.s to its 'needs and logic
1
. In this case

reproduction is not theorized but merely hinted at, which further obfuscates

the question of transition.

If the manner in which structures and conditions of existence

reproduce themselves is not known then it becomes impossible to specify

how this reproduction ceases to operate and transition occurs.

It has become fairly commonplace to criticize Balibar's

conceptualization of modes of production as a static inventory where the
27

problems of correspondence or non-correspondence becomes meaningless

.

Yet I believe that a careful reading of Balibar shows that his position

is in many ways the most sophisticated one presented to date. I believe

that Balibar's problematic concerning his notions of synchrony and

diachrony can be used quite fruitfully.

It should be noted that Balibar himself has rejected the idea of a

transitional mode of production which he put forward in Reading Capital.

In his self criticism Balibar makes it clear that

"transition is not, is never, for reasons of principle,
mere supersession, an 'internal' results of 'tendencies'
observable in the mode of production itself and responsible

for the development of its characteristic relations of production,
even if this development is simultaneously a development of
contradictions. ...transition requires the analysis of other
material conditions and other social forms than those implied

in the concept of mode of production alone. "28



121

Balibar then adds

"There is a general problematic... of 'transition'
in social formations i.e. of 'revolution in the relations
of production'. This pertains to the fact that the
concept of 'class societies', resting on mode of
production which are of the same time mode of
exploitation, cannot be constituted without reference
to the historical transformation of modes of exploitation
(in other words, there is no such thing as exploitation
in general, only determinate forms of exploitation). But
for all that there is no such thing as a general theory
of transition , in the strong sense of an explanation of
the causality of a process. On the contrary, it emerges
that each historical 'transition' different , materially
and therefore conceptually. ... historical materialism
is not only a theory of the necessity of the (revolutionary)
transformation of the social relations, but also a theory
of the transformation of the mode of transformation of
social relations such that two revolutions never have the
same concept 29

Earlier within the text of Rcaiing Capital Balibar had elaborated a

theory of social change which distinguished between modes of production

reproducing themselves (synchrony) and those in a state of transition

(diachrony)

.

"We have seen that the analysis of the relations which
appertain to a determinate mode of production and
constitute its structure must be thought as the
constitution of a theoretical "synchrony": this is
reflected with respect to the mode of production by
Marx in the concept of reproduction . The analysis of
all the peculiar effects of the structure of the mode
of production is necessarily part of the synchrony.
The concept of diachrony will therefore be reserved
for the time of the transition from one mode of
production to another, i.e. for the time determined by
the replacement and transformation of the relations of
production which constitute the double articulation of
the structure. "30

Balibar then goes on to develop the notion of the complexity of a mode

of production defined by the correspondence or non-correspondence of the

two connections (productive forces and the relations of production).



122

"In the form of non-correspondence which is that of the
phases of transition such as manufacture, the relationship
between the two connections no longer takes the form of a
reciprocal limitation, but becomes the transformation of
the one by the effect of the other : this is shown by the
whole analysis of the manufacture and the industrial
revolution, in which the capitalist nature of production
(the necessity of creating surplus value in the form of
relative surplus value) determines and governs the
transition of the productive forces to their specifically
capitalist form ... The "reproduction" of this specific
complexity is the reproduction of the effect of the one
connection on the other... In the one case (correspondence
C.S.) we are dealing with the reciprocal limitation of the
effectivities of the two connections, in the other (non-
correspondence C.S.) with the transformation of one by
the effecivity of the other. "31

The mode of correspondence between the different levels of the

social structure (mode of articulation) of these levels can likewise be

generalized. This articulation "depends in turn on the form of the

internal correspondence of the structure of production". This generalized

relationship (correspondence) can he analysed as the "mode of intervention

of one practise within limits determined by another" for example the

intervention of the class struggle within limits determined by the
32

economic structure. The length of the working day and wages are subject

to a variation which is not determined by the structure but depends on the

balance of forces. But the limits to this variation are set by the

structure thus its autonomy is relative. So in this case the result of

the intervention of political practise is to transform and fix the limits

of the mode of production.

"In the transition period, the forms of law and of State
policy are not as hitherto, adopted to the economic
structure (articulated with the peculiar limits of the
structure of production) but dislocated with respect to
it: as well as showing force as an economic agent, the
analyses of primitive accumulation also reveal the
precession of law and of the forms of the State with
respect to the forms of the capitalist economic structure.
This dislocation can be translated by saying that the
correspondence appears here, too in the form of a
"non-correspondence" between the different levels. In



123

a transition period, there is a "non-correspondence"
because the mode of intervention of political
practise, instead of conserving limits and producing
its effects within their determination, displaces
them and transforms them. There is therefore no
general form of correspondence between the level,
but a variation of forms, which depend on the degree
of autonomy of one instance with respect to another
(and to the economic instance) and on the mode of their
mutual intervention . . . the theory of dislocations
(within the economic structure, between the instances)
and of the forms of non-correspondence is only ever
possible by a double reference to the structure of
two mode of production . . . Periods of tranisition
are therefore characterized by the co-existence of
several modes of production, as well as by these
forms of non-correspondence. "33

As noted earlier in this paper I would agree with this formulation

of synchrony and diachrony only given the proviso that the structure of two

modes of production need not be present in toto. This brings us back to

Engels ' question (one taken up recently by Perry Anderson in his analysis

of the absolutist state). Is it possible for more than one ruling class

to co-exist in such a way that these antagonistic (warring) classes of

non-labourers somehow balance each other and the state acquires a certain

amount of independence? This may in fact be a real problem for the study

of absolutism or even for the study of certain colonial social formations

with dual indigenous and foreign ruling classes. Yet if one accepts that

no general theoretical concept of diachrony or transition is possible then

I do not believe that one can posit state autonomy in some sort of

teleological fashion as an invariant element in transition. This does

not solve the problem of whether the state can function independently of

the ruling class or classes in some instances which is a question not yet

fully worked out. I feel that an independent state is possible and perhaps

may have existed in sixteenth and seventeenth century Europe and might

-exist today in certain third world countries, but full periodizat ion of

this problem would require a separate work and is not resolvable within

the realm of theory abstracted from concrete states, social formations

and class struggles.



12^

There has in fact been much debate on the nature of transitional

"societies" such as that between Sweezy, Dobb et al on the nature of

the transition from feudalism to capitalism in Western Europe

(including a perfunctory comparison with Japan). I believe that the

main problems with such debates (e.g. whether to characterize manufacturing

as feudal, capitalist or a transitional mode of production) have to be

resolved into levels of abstraction to become comprehensible. It is at

the most abstract level that the formulations of Hindess and Hirst are

most operational. That is, the relations of production are determinate

of the structure of the dominant mode of production which characterizes

a social formation.

That is, the mode of production as such does not constitute the

object of theoretical investigation in this case, but rather the social

formation. In the example given i.e. the case of sixteenth century western

Europe, I would agree neither with Dobb who posits that the social

formation ("economic system") was characterized by capitalism nor with

Sweezy who sees it as a transitional conjuncture, but rather with Rodney

Hilton who posits a dominant feudal M.P. within the varying social

formations, albeit one that was being undermined. That is the economic

basis of those who still held commanding positions in the state was still

feudal and in the terms of analysis offered here the predominant relations

of production were still feudal (or so they seem to me without claiming

any special expertise on the period). The point is at the level of

abstraction of a social formation one can coherently make such a judgement.

A very important theroetical question remains i.e. at what point in

an historical conjucture do the conditions of existence of the dominant M.P.

stop reproducing themselves and therefore the dominant relations of production?

Generally speaking I believe that the site of the problem can be identified

as the point of intersection of the base (the articulated combination of

forces and relations of production replete with ideological effectivities)

and the superstructure (the state and political-legal level also replete

with ideological effectivities). It is this correspondence which conditions

transition. Yet as in the example sited the changing nature of productive

forces and relations undermining this correspondence may continue for a



125

period of say roughly 300 years in the transition from feudalism to capitalism.

I do not believe that one can pinpoint the exact moment whence a given

social formation is no longer dominated by a particular mode of production.

On the contrary, what I wish to achieve is to provide broad parameters

for the characterization of given social formations in given conjunctures.

Such analysis are not straightforwardly open to empirical prediction based

on manipulation of key variables. One cannot specify the exact percentage

of separation of direct producers from the means of production which would

make capitalism operable for example. Such an exercise would be an

absurdity since obviously many other factos are at work and play important

roles.

The transition phase provides a difficult problem in theorization.

It cannot represent a transitional mode of production but rather an unstable

social formation, caveat emptor . For as Bettelheim points out the starting

point of analysis is not instability but rather the dislocation or non-

homology between formal (property) and real appropriation.

"What marks the transition phase as a whole is not mainly
the instability of the new social order, nor is it the
abscence of domination by the new production-relations,
it is the fact that there is still a relatively large degree
of non-correspondence between the new production-relations,
henceforth dominant , and the nature of the essential
production forces.'^4

As noted I don't agree with Bettelheim or Balibar that this dislocation

(diachrony) characterizes a new transitional mode of production. Such a
concept would emasculate the theoretical specificity of modes of production
into infinte permutations and combinations.

How then does one periodize transition? I will offer three possible
modes of analysis corresponding to the degree of complexity of a social
formation. At the most general level, formal appropriation (the possession
of or separation from the means of production, appropriation of surplus,

distribution of surplus labour) determines the economic structure of the

dominant practise within a given social formation. In the first case that

of a social formation almost completely dominated by one mode of production,



126

for example primitive communism, it is the immanent contradiction within

the economic structure of the single and therefore dominant M.P. which

provides the mode of transformation i.e. determines whether reproduction

or non-reproduction of the conditions of existence of the M.P. takes

place. The tendency toward territorial expansion accompanying population

growth under primitive communism could lead to various crises at the level

of ideological social relations. As the tribe, phratry or whatever

expanded new forms of social control through kinship or religion might

be called into existence. Transitional forms of a superstructure (already

dislocated in terms of correspondence with the economic base) might arise,

such as the gentile consitution. At this point under certain conditions

the state itself might come into existence a state once consituted would

involve a different system of productive forces and property and this

would help to create a new mode of production.

The second type of transitional conjuncture again involves a non-

correspondence (in no way complete of course) between productive forces and

productive relations, but in this cas.-> one will be able to discern quite

clearly the presence of essential elements of two distinct modes of

production. In such cases the dominant mode of production is demarcated

by its more or less hegemonic control of productive property and productive

relations albeit often in rather bastardized forms. Such articulated modes

ay in fact be particularly resilient and long lasting. In the case of
domestic manufacture predominating in a social formation one finds predominant

capitalist freehold property, bourgeois law combined with artisanal production

carried out by direct producers (perhaps cottars) still in possession of most

of their own means of production and a situation where merchants and

usurers capital fulfills the directive functions and mediates between

production and exchange. Such social formations (common in eighteenth

century Europe) are not yet entirely capitalist, in fact metayage may still

exist in widespread form, but they are for the most part dominated by

capitalist institutions (even if sometimes of a perfunctory nature)

capitalist relations of production and a capitalist state i.e. one controled

primarily in the interests (if not by) a bourgeoisie. I would characterize



12?

such a conjuncture as capitalist at the point at which the predominant

mode of appropriation of surplus takes place within predominantly capitalist

relations of exchange and social relations. The actual forms that the

transformation of productive and corresponding superstructural relations

take depend on specific internal and external contradictions of the the

social formation delineating its conditions of existence and the actual

course of class struggle witnin such prescribed limits.

The third transitional conjuncture involves a multiplicity of more

than two modes and forms of production which can again be expressed in

terms of dominance set by the economic level but where direct state

intervention would seem to be necessary to stabilize such a complex

articulation in order that the dominant relations of production might

reproduce themselves. For example in 192i Lenin periodized Soviet Russia

in terms of five separate modes and forms of production wherein the collective

ownership of the means of production provided the determinant level but one

which could only structure articulation of the social formation through

the state and political practise. Multiple contradictions within the

varied elements existed which could have possibly served to undermine

socialism of various points, one could in fact argue that this is what

happened under Stalin. But at any rate the main, point I wish to make is

only that new productive forces were not immediately forthcoming as an

inevitable result of changed relations production. Such correspondance

can only come about through struggle at the level of all existing social

relations which is necessary because the outcome of such struggle while

prescribed within certain limits is in no way pre-determined in any

strict sense.

In summary then actual transition does not constitute a new separate

mode of production but a dislocated state of an articulated combination

of modes of production (diachrony) where one mode is dominant. In practise

the boundaries can be obscure, capricious and relatively undefined, but

I prefer this uncertainty to positing a transitional mode which undermines

mode of production as a theoretical concept. In concrete terms the actual

transition is defined by a non-inevitable class struggle between the major



128

classes and fractions so the co-existing modes and forms of production

which takes place at different levels and reflects the structural and

superstructural totality. The state manifests itself as the region of

condensation of the levels, but control of the state does represent

a complex and possibly long and arduous accession to power.

A further problem involves the generally contradictory nature of

articulation of M.P.'s. Can synchrony as a concept exist outside of

tendencies toward transition? The answer I believe does not lie simply

within the realm of theory. As I have said transition depends on

determinate class struggle within the structural complexity of a mode

of production or more generally a social formation. Unique circumstances

with their own causal specificity and relative autonomy play an important

part at the level of concrete conjunctures. It is at this level that

factors such as geography, climate, demography, personality, etc. come into

play. They are never isolated from the structural complexity but neither

are they simply or unilaterally determined by it or subsumed within it.

Thus the concrete conjuncture must be separated from social formation as

a threoretical construct and should be seen not merely as possible

outcomes predetermined by the structures but also as outcomes derived

from the give and take of actual class struggle.



129

FOOTNOTES

1. Callinicos, N., Althusser 's Marxism , p. 34, Pluto Fress , London, 1976.

2. Cardoso, C.F.S., "Colonial Modes of Production", Critique of Anthropology
,

Nos. 4 and 5, Autumn, 1975.

3. Balibar, Etienne in Reading Capital (B. Brewster, trans), New Left Books,
London, 1970. Althusser, Louis, pages 209-253.

4. Another level theoretical is sometimes introduced but for methodological
reasons beyond this essay I reject Althusser 's distinction between theory
and ideology and thus I leave it out for my purposes here. My reasons
for doing so are grounded in what 1 take to be Althusser 's fundamental
demarcation of scientific work as the activity of generality II,
theoretical concepts on generality I ideological representations.
For example Marx's concept of mode of production could be applied to
the representations of a particular social formation to produce scientific
theory. Whether this theory would have a specific effectivit^y from the
ideological instance and thus would constitute a transformative element
cannot be posited in a mechanical fashion and would very much depend
upon the particular historical conjuncture, and it is the conjuncture
which is at issue here. If as Althusser maintains "the knowledge
effect is the appropriation of the real object" then the real object of
revolutionary theory must be revolutionary politics and the two cannot
be separated as Althusser would at times maintain.

5. Balibar, E. , op. cit ., p. 224. Althusser, L. For Marx , Allen Lane,
(B. Brewster, trans), 1969, p. 200.

6. Balibar, Etienne, "Self Criticism: An Answer to Questions from 'Theoretical
Practise"' in Theoretical Practise , No. 7/8 January 1973.

7. Poulantzas, Nicos, Folitical Power and Social Classes (T. O'Hagan, trans),
New Left Books, London, 1973, 12, 13, 40, 42, "On Social Classes", New
Left Review , p. 54.

8. Hindess, B. Hirst, P.Q., Pre-Capitalist Modes of Production , Routledge
and Kegan Paul, London, 1375, p. 125.

9. Rey, Pierre-Philippe, Les Alliances de Classes , My translation, p. 22,
Maspero, Paris, 1973.

10. Cf. Balibar, E., in Althusser and Balibar, op. cit. , 1970, p. 235.

11. Gareth Stedman-Jor.es, "Modes of Production Workshop", Communist University
of Cambridge, April, 25, 1976.

12. Poulantzas, Niccs, "Cn Social Classes", p. 28, New Left Feview , No. TJ-.

13. Laclau, Ernesto, "Feudalism and Capitalism in Latin America, New Left
Review , No. 67, Kay-June, 1971, p. 33.



130

m. In cases where the technical conditions of existence for a new mode
of production come into existence before the social relations of
production, this does not necessitate transition but might facilitate
such an historical process given a suitable conjuncture. An example
of such a conjuncture could be China during the period of the warring
states or Tokugawa Japan.

15. Poulantzas, N., op. cit ., 1973, p. 63, footnote 8.

16. Ibid. , p. 63.

17. Ibid. , p. 64.

18. Ibid. , p. 66.

19. j: n>ia.^;-p..i5.-

^?i}7> Hindess and Hirst, op. cit. , p. 31.

21. Ibid. , p. 15.

22. Cf. Rey P.P., op. cit. , postscript.

23. Poulantzas, N., op. cit. , 1973, p. 15.

24. Ibid. , p. 15.

25. Poulantzas, N., "On Social Classes" in New Left Review , p. 33.

26. Godelier, Maurice, "On the Definition of a Social Formation" Critique
of Anthropology , No. 1, Spring 1974, p. 63.

27. Rey, P.P. "The Linneage Mode of Production", Critique of Anthropology
No. 3, Spring 1975.

28. Balibar, E. in Theoretical Practise , op. cit. p. 64.

29. Ibid. , p. 69.

30. Balibar, E., op. cit. 1970, p. 297.

31. Ibid. , p. 304.

32. Ibid. , p. 305

33. Ibid. , p. 306-307