This article addresses the theoretical problems which matriarchal theory has introduced into Marxism (Engels and Soviet scholarship). The author discusses fi ve problem areas: 1. The extent to which it is possible to defi ne social formations and modes of production using gender categories. 2. The relationship between matriarchy (or: the high position of women) and communism (in the past as well as the future). 3. The relationship of matriarchal theory to the general premises of the materialist theory of history (the dialectic of productive forces and relations of production). 4. The relationship between matriarchal theory and theoretical issues relating to sexuality, in particular female sexuality. 5. The extent to which it is possible to construct collective identities based on the matriarchal tradition and the tradition of research into matriarchy (Russian identity, Eastern identity – in opposition to Western identity). The author proposes that the Marxist typology of the modes of production (based on the category of “asexual” “direct producer”) be supplemented by a typology of the relationship between women and men (in the process of production), and formulates the following questions concerning the future: – Will a future socialist revolution be able to establish a connection with the remains of matriarchal “ideology” surviving in the social consciousness (above all, in the consciousness of older women)? – Will the ethos of motherhood be an element of the ideology of a future socialist society? – Can Marxism eschew its occidental bourgeois revolution perspective, and take as its reference point the (collectivist-matriarchal) Eastern identity (as was unwittingly done by Soviet researchers into matriarchy during the Stalinist period)?
The aim of the paper is to critically analyze the concept of mode of production (MoP). The author points out three problems with the existing approaches: 1) MoP is a theory of the state, 2) underestimating reproduction over production, and 3) understanding production as the production of commodities – treating Wealth as wealth and undervaluing the production of people in favor of the production of things, commodities. After reviewing the key approaches to MoP, the author develops each of the aforementioned problems in order to be able to ask the title questions, as well as to try to sketch out possible solutions to each of the problems.
PL
Celem artykułu jest krytyczna analiza pojęcia sposobu produkcji (SP). Autor wskazuje na trzy problemy związane z dotychczasowymi ujęciami: 1) SP jest teorią państwa, 2) bagatelizowanie reprodukcji na rzecz produkcji, 3) rozumie nie produkcji jako wytwarzanie towarów – traktowanie Bogactwa jako bogactwa i bagatelizowanie produkcji ludzi na rzecz produkcji rzeczy, towarów. Po dokonaniu przeglądu dotychczasowych węzłowych ujęć SP autor rozwija każdy z wspomnianych problemów, aby móc postawić tytułowe pytania, a także, by spróbować naszkicować ewentualne możliwości rozwiązania każdego z problemów.
JavaScript jest wyłączony w Twojej przeglądarce internetowej. Włącz go, a następnie odśwież stronę, aby móc w pełni z niej korzystać.