Property in the Means of Production

The means of production owned and dominated by individuals, classes, groups or the society. It is the relation formed between men with regard to the possession of the means of production. It determines both the relations between men in the production process, but also the relations of distribution, the relations of exchange and the relations of consumption.

Marx pointed out that, in general, the human (isolated or social) always comes on to the stage as a property owner before he appears as a worker, even if the property is only what he procures for himself from nature. This shows that the possession of the means of production is the premise for people to carry out production.

Human production is always social production and can only take place in certain relations of production. The possession of the means of production, which, at first glance, seems to be the relation of man with things, is in essence, the relation between men. For example, in capitalist production, capitalists are the owners of the means of production and workers are the sellers of labor-power. Through the combination of the means of production and labor, which assumes the form of capital and wage-labor, the capitalists squeeze out surplus-value from the wage-laborers. Therefore, the capitalist property in the means of production is a relation in which man exploits man and in which the capitalists appropriate the surplus-value created by workers through the possession of the means of production.

The forms of property develop and change. A certain form of property in the means of production depends on a certain level of development of the productive forces of society. When the productive forces develop and change to a certain extent, the property in the means of production will also change accordingly. Engels once pointed out that every change in the social order, every revolution in property relations, is the necessary consequence of the creation of new forces of production which no longer fit into the old property relations. For example, in primitive society, the level of the productive forces was extremely low, and individuals were unable to fight against nature, consequently, they could only work together as a clan, which determined the possession in common of the means of production. At the end of primitive society, there was a certain development of productive forces, a slight surplus of produce, a division of labor and exchange, and the corresponding emergence of the private possession of the means of production and their results, i.e., private property. This was accompanied by the emergence of the phenomenon of the exploitation of man by man and the cleavage of society into two classes, the slave-owners and the slaves. The later historical development of mankind was the irresistible transition from the slave-owner property to feudal lord property, and then from feudal lord property to capitalist property, along with changes in the development of the productive forces.

Capitalist property is the highest form of the private property in the means of production. Under capitalist conditions, the productive forces have developed to an unprecedented degree, and production has become increasingly socialized. The socialized large-scale production also requires breaking through the restrictions of the narrow scope of private property and replacing it with socialist public property. This replacement is fundamentally different from the previous transformation from one type of private property to another. First, it is the inevitable result of the development of productive forces and the transformation from private property to the public property of the society. Second, such a revolution is to be achieved through fierce class struggle. Because not only will the bourgeoisie not voluntarily give up exploiting all, but it will also cruelly suppress the resistance of the proletariat. This determines that socialist public property cannot arise within the old society based upon private property, and that the proletariat can only establish socialist public property if it first conquers the political power and establishes the dictatorship of the proletariat, and by the expropriation of the expropriators.

The property in the means of production is the basis of the relations of production. A certain form of the property in the means of production determines a certain position and relationship of men in production, certain relations of exchange and certain relations of distribution of products. Therefore, in whose hands are the means of production, this the chief hallmark to distinguish the various economic formations of society so far. On the other hand, the property in the means of production always realizes itself through the moments of social reproduction, such as production, exchange and distribution. Capitalist property, for example, can only manifest itself through the production of surplus-value of the workers employed by capitalists, which in turn can only be realized through exchange, and expresses the full range of class antagonisms through distribution. Therefore, the form of property determines the relationship of men in production, the relations of exchange and distribution of products, while the relations of production, exchange and distribution of men again embody the property relations. That is why Marx and Engels declared in The Communist Manifesto that the Communists bring to the front the property question as the leading question of the movement. The theory of the Communists may be summed up in the single sentence: Abolition of private property. This fully demonstrates how impracticable is the idea of attempting to leave the capitalist property untouched and demanding changes in the status of the working class only in terms of exchange and distribution.