"Glossary of Political Economy Terms by Xu He" Study Reflections on the Evening of November 11:

free discussion
1

Problems encountered: Page 16, in the law that production relations must conform to the laws of the nature of productive forces, “Productive forces and production relations are two inseparable aspects of the mode of production. Productive forces are the material content of production, while production relations are the social form of production; they are dialectically related as opposites and unity.” I find it a bit difficult to understand the contradiction and opposition between “material content” and “social form” here. Based on my previous impression, I always thought that matter should be opposed to spirit. How do others interpret this?

Some reflections: Among the means of labor, the most important are tools of production, and I often think of only these. However, the actual definition of means of labor is: all material conditions necessary for the labor process. This includes not only tools of production but also conditions like roads, land, etc.
“…The disastrous consequences caused by the long-standing existence of old production relations mainly fall on the laborers, who are the primary factor of productive forces.” I have mostly seen analyses from a class perspective about the oppression of laborers. This is the first time I see an analysis from the perspective of productive forces and production relations, which is a bit surprising.
“As production develops, the varieties and quantities of products used for distribution, exchange, and consumption will increase, and the ways of distribution, exchange, and consumption will also change accordingly.” For example, before the formation of a capitalist society, during primitive society, production was not very developed and could not meet everyone’s basic needs, so people had to cooperate and implement public ownership of distribution. But as productive forces develop, basic needs are met, which lays the foundation for private property. This led to the first major social division of labor, the disintegration of primitive society, and men who mastered animal husbandry gained dominance in distribution, acquiring more property, and thus also dominating exchange and consumption.
“Distribution, exchange, and consumption—although fundamentally determined by production—also influence the development of production.” The influence of consumption on production is not just a vulgar understanding like the Nazis’ “a certain place’s popularity led to increased consumption, which in turn promoted production and GDP growth.” For example, railways. Their consumption also creates various needs in production, such as railway parts. They also connect some previously remote rural areas, bringing needs like agricultural machinery. Nowadays, for example, computers. The consumption and use of computers also generate various production needs, such as computer parts, software, etc. At the same time, they create prerequisites for production, like online shopping.

2

I think there is no contradiction here; the main emphasis is on the relationship between content and form, rather than the opposition between matter and society. As for productive forces being “material” content, it’s also because productive forces contain material factors, such as technological factors in social production.

3

The productive forces reflect the relationship between humans and nature, while the relations of production reflect the mutual relationships among people during production. Human transformation of nature is a struggle with nature, which is the two-sided contradiction of productive forces. But since humans need to produce, they must organize into certain social forms for production. No one is like Robinson Crusoe on an island (not to mention that Crusoe’s physical and intellectual abilities are also acquired through social practice), so they can only transform nature within certain forms of production. Therefore, productive forces and relations of production constitute the contradiction of the mode of production.

The reason why it is called the relationship between content and form is that, within the contradiction of the mode of production, productive forces always determine the social relations of production that people adopt, and these relations of production reflect a certain level of social productive forces and also react back on them. For example, under primitive social productive forces, people could only adopt primitive communism, collective labor, and equal distribution, and could not leave the collective to produce alone (which would only lead to starvation). But in feudal society, this was possible because the level of productive forces then determined that an individual could produce alone to meet basic needs. Similarly, large-scale machinery and industry determine that people can only organize production in capitalist or socialist ways. If feudal peasants were asked to do this, it would be impossible because feudal peasants work individually on scattered lands. If they are forced to work unpaid beyond their feudal obligations for others, and only receive wages, they would not accept such brutal exploitation and would rebel. Only hired workers can do this.

As for the relationship between material and spirit, this pertains to epistemology. Humans only have contradictions between material and spirit within the realm of epistemology, i.e., the relationship between human social existence and social consciousness. Ontologically, they are consistent because spirit, by its nature, is just a special attribute of matter, not an independent thing. Since humans are material beings and naturally material, neither productive forces nor relations of production involve the relationship between matter and spirit.

The contradiction between matter and spirit exists within the epistemological problem centered on humans as a species—namely, the relationship between human social existence and social consciousness. Specifically, this refers to the relationship between the mode of social production humans are in and the thinking that arises within this mode. Humans’ ability to transform nature and society varies under different modes of production, so their understanding of nature and themselves (if we take humans as the epistemological subject, then it refers to human society as a whole, since society is essentially the sum of all social relations) is determined by their transformative capacity. Only a capitalist society capable of producing airplanes can have knowledge of airplanes, pilots, and related cultural phenomena such as movies about pilots. Before capitalism, such knowledge did not exist. The understanding generated within this mode of production also reflects the current level of productive forces (the appearance of Western goods in Dream of the Red Chamber indicates that the Qing Dynasty people were aware of the West, which could only be possible when both Qing and Western productive forces reached a certain level). It also has a reactive effect on the mode of production (such as revolutionary theories influencing revolutions). Therefore, overall, the contradiction between matter and spirit is only a part of the internal contradictions of human society, with material contradictions being the main ones. Even this contradiction between matter and spirit is relative in nature, and only makes sense from an epistemological perspective.

4

I see. I was mistaken about the main point, thinking it was the opposition and unity of “material” and “social,” but in fact it is the opposition and unity of “form” and “content.”

5

Now I understand