Modes of Exchange
Discussion
Why Kojin Karatani Switched from Modes of Production to Modes of Exchange
Kojin Karatani:
"I proposed the notion of switching “from modes of production to modes of exchange” in The Structure of World History (2010; English trans. 2014). Here, I would like to provide a simple explanation of this. Orthodox Marxist theory, using an architectural metaphor, explains the history of social forms in terms of modes of production, which form the economic base (foundation), and of the political or ideational superstructures that are determined by that base. A mode of production consists of the productive forces, which arise from the relations between humans and nature, and the relations of production, which are constituted by the relations between humans. I do not oppose the idea that the history of social forms is determined by the economic base, but in my view that base consists not of modes of production, but rather modes of exchange. What I call modes of exchange includes both relations between nature and humans and relations between humans.1 I came to see things this way as a result of various critiques that were mounted in response to problems in the Marxist view that modes of production constituted the economic base—critiques that ultimately resulted in a rejection of the idea of an economic base.
This does not amount to a rejection of Marx. At the stage of writing The German Ideology, Marx himself used the expression “productive forces and intercourse,” not “productive forces and relations of production.” The concept of intercourse (Verkehr) includes relations of production, transportation, trade, sexual intercourse and even war. In other words, it includes all the various types of “exchange” that occur among that occur among communities.Accordingly, the various forms that I call modes of exchange can be said to correspond to what Marx called intercourse. A perspective centered on modes of production (productive forces and relations of production) fails to see that the relation between people and nature is itself a form of exchange (metabolism) and as a result loses sight of the ecological awareness that was included in Marx’s use of the term."
(http://www.kojinkaratani.com/en/pdf/An_Introduction_to_Modes_of_Exchange.pdf)
Historical Materialism and the focus on Modes of Production Originated from Engels, not Marx
Kojin Karatani:
"Historical materialism based on modes of production was a view originally proposed by Engels. After Marx’s death, Engels would describe this as Marx’s own epochal invention, but this was not the case.5 Engels had already adopted this line of thought back when Marx was still under the intellectual sway of the German Young Hegelian school. This was because Engels lived in England, where he witnessed the development of a capitalist economy and the class struggle (the labor movement) that characterizes it. From that point, he turned his gaze back on the history of society. The formulas of historical materialism amounted to the projection back onto pre-capitalist society of a perspective that was established on the basis of capitalism. In that sense, it might be of some use as a “guiding thread” for understanding pre-capitalist society, but cannot be used for grasping a capitalist economy. Accordingly, Marx brought in a different approach. According to the theory of historical materialism, the base of capitalist society lies in the relations of production between capitalists and workers. But Marx in Capital does not begin from there, but rather from exchange (money and commodity). Why? In general, according to historical materialism and those forms of Marxism based on it, production is of primary importance, and exchange is secondary. Yet this is, if anything, a view grounded in the thought of the classical economists such as Adam Smith, who were the object of Marx’s critique. Smith and his ilk were rejecting merchant capital, which earned its profits from exchanges, as well as the theories of their mercantilist and bullionist predecessors, whose thought was grounded in merchant capital. Smith asserted the legitimacy of the earnings of industrial capital, as opposed to those of merchant capital. In sum, for classical economists like Smith, exchange was of only secondary importance. But for Marx, exchange was fundamental. This was because he was taking up questions that had been disavowed by classical economics. In that sense, we could say that he analyzed capital by returning to mercantilism and bullionism. He considered merchant capital and moneylending capital to be the essential forms of capital. Mercantilism and bullionism demonstrated that what drove capital was not the desire for material goods, but rather for money—in other words, the drive to accumulate the ‘power’ that enables one to acquire material goods through exchange with the money one has.Moreover, this accumulation of power could only by realized through differences generated through exchange (surplus value).6 The real question is, where does this ‘power’ (exchange value) come from? Marx saw it as a kind of spiritual power adhering to the commodity—as, that is, a fetish.
The essential characteristic of a capitalist economy cannot be explained through its mode of production. This is because that characteristic lies in its mode of exchange. For example, the relation between capitalist and worker is based on an agreement/contract between the capitalist who has money and the laborer who has the labor power commodity. Accordingly, this is qualitatively different from the relation in medieval Europe between feudal lord and serf, just as it is qualitatively different from the relation in classical Greece and Rome between citizen and slave. In sum, the difference between relations of production in capitalism and those in earlier relations of production is a difference in mode of exchange. Under the theory of historical materialism, transformations in the social formation are understood as a series of stages in the development of relations of production. But in reality, transformations in mode of exchange exist at a more fundamental, basic level. A variety of modes of exchange continue to exist in a modern capitalist societies, but the commodity mode of exchange is dominant. The “productive forces and relations of production” of these societies are simply the results of this. Accordingly, when Marx undertook his consideration of the capitalist economy, he began from its mode of exchange. He relied on historical materialism as a “guiding thread” only with regard to earlier societies. But, in fact, even in the case of pre-capitalist stages, trying to understand them in terms of modes of 10 production leads to difficulties. Had Marx tried to tackle this on his own, probably he would have ended up taking a different approach to pre-capitalist social formations as well. This is clear, as I will discuss below, from the study he made of Morgan’s Ancient Society in his later years.
...
Engels’s words: “These two great discoveries, the materialistic conception of history and the revelation of the secret of capitalistic production through surplus-value, we owe to Marx.” (Engels, Socialism: Utopian and Scientific; Marx and Engels, Collected Works, 24:305). After Marx’s death, he began to describe these as constituting “Marxism.” But as Wataru Hiromatsu long ago demonstrated, this is not correct. It was Engels who in the 1840s first proposed the “materialist view of history” (historical materialism). Moreover, it is also clear that their collaborative work The German Ideology (especially its first section, “Feuerbach”) was also written largely at Engels’ initiative."
(http://www.kojinkaratani.com/en/pdf/An_Introduction_to_Modes_of_Exchange.pdf)