Means of Production

Conceptual Overview and Discussion

Marx regarded the development of the means of production as a necessary but insufficient condition for communism. Unlike premodern visions of a classless communal society, Marx's vision highlighted the potential of modern industry's advanced means of production for overcoming scarcity and achieving abundance. Accordingly, Marx was highly impressed by the development of the means of production in his own day.

In the opening sections of The Communist Manifesto, Marx wrote that the bourgeoisie were continually revolutionizing the instruments of production and thereby the whole of society. The rapid improvement of the instruments of production had greatly advanced means of communication and hence drawn all nations together. The bourgeoisie had done away with scattered means of production and centralized them. Marx concluded that modern bourgeois society had conjured up immense means of production; but, he predicted, they would soon slip from the grasp of the bourgeoisie into the hands of the proletariat.

In retrospect, Marx is generally praised for appreciating that advanced means of production would create unprecedented prosperity and alter society immensely on a global scale. But key criticisms have been advanced. First, Marx did not appreciate the major environmental consequences of the revolution in the means of production. Second, he was too optimistic about overcoming scarcity. No matter how far the means of production advance, positional goods (Fred Hirsch's term) remain scarce. Goods that have value because of their status—whether exclusive, cool, prestigious, hot, or alternative—cannot become abundant.

A society's means of production is just one element of its forces of production: the other is its labor power. The reason for this is that means of production are themselves inert unless acted upon by labor power. Means of production are nothing but empty fields or factories or offices without labor power to put them to work. The latter refers to the exercise of human mental and physical capabilities in production. This duality within the forces of production, or what Marx also called the productive powers of humanity, has given rise to a tension within Marxist thought: one strand of Marxism gives priority to the technological determination of history; another emphasizes praxis or the importance of the creative work and struggle in history. The former strand has a deterministic quality; the latter has a more voluntaristic quality.

In turn, a society's forces of production are but one part of its mode of production. A mode of production is composed of both the forces of production and the relations of production. This is because of the crucial role of property and of power. A society's relations of production consist of the ways its productive forces are owned and controlled. Production relations give rise to classes and class conflict. In precapitalist modes of production involving slavery and serfdom, the masters owned and controlled both the means of production and the labor power of their serfs and slaves. In capitalism, the bourgeoisie owns and controls only the means of production; the proletarians own and sell their labor power in return for wages. In communism, society as a whole would own and control both the means of production and the labor power of its members. Control of the means of production is one of the main criteria distinguishing different modes of production. Under capitalism, the means of production are privately owned and controlled by the bourgeoisie. Under communism, they would be held in common ownership.

...