View PDF Version - RePub

on which itis based, i.e. the Compatibility argument. In the criticism which
Arthur Levine and Erik Wright have levelled at Cohen's defence of the
Primacy Ib~sis, the CQmpatibilityArgumentorThesis is stated as:-'Agiven
level of development of productive forces is compatible with only a limited
range of relations of production' (Levine & Wright 1980: 52-53).1
If we are correct in asserting that the study of the labour process
and, therefore, of the level of the productive forces does not with any
specificity reveal anything about the social relations of production, a more
fundamental criticism of their so-called 'compatibility' should be
undertaken. If a precise account ofthe level of the productive forces does
not necessarily bring to light in what way the social relations of product ion
are constituted, we can only conclude that the effect that they may have, the
one upon the other, cannot be profitably analysed at this level of specificity,
i.e. of concreteness. If there is any kind of mutual determinacy, its operation
will have to be analysed at a (much) higher level of abstraction. The
dynamics of historical development cannot fruitfully be theorized by
viewing the productive forces and the relations of production as separate
entities that interact functionally. Rather, the dynamic should be conceived
at the level of a social formation and of the modes of production by which
it is constituted. In this context, the productive forces and the production
relations are to be seen as components that have to be established
independently, after which they can be understood as defining a mode of
production in their specific interconnectedness.
2. A Definition of 'Peasants' and what this has to say about the
Social Relations of Peasant Prod uction
To what extent do these theoretical considerations arise from, and in what
way are they supported by, an analysis of the production relations in peasant
farming? As a first step towards answering these questions we shall specify
the issues that have to be considered if the analysis we are going to make is
to result in a correct account ofthe social relations of production. To this
end, we shall cover three main aspects, i.e.
- whether or not the direct producers are the owners of, or have
(some) control over, the means of production;
18