RUBIN: Chapter Two "The Production Process and its Social Form"

In capitalism both material goods and social relations are produced, which corresponds to the distinction between PF and PR. The totality of PR is "adjusted" by the condition of PF--this seems to be a vague generality and doesn't tell us much. The correspondence between PF and PR varies depending on the society--in a socialist economy, PR are consciously established in order to facilitate the production process. Calculated social needs drive production. Changes in PF may still lead to changes in PR, but this happens as a managed decision, not automatically. There is no contradiction between PF and PR.

An example of this is seen within enterprises in a capitalist system, thus for Rubin socialism manages society (PR) like a factory. The PR here are organized for things, not by them--they are not driven by exchange. Things move within particular PR, but do not create PR. This is a fine distinction perhaps, but the main idea is that because PR aren't organized via exchange, they are planned and technically motivated, regardless of the heteronomous forces and pressures that may come to bear upon the productive process.

With separate firms under capitalism, the relations between firms (PR) are established by the traffic of things and follow the logic of exchange, hence can be wasteful, destructive and detrimental to the individual or to the social whole--CONTRADICTIONS.

The basic relation of commodity society is appropriating another's product by alienating one's own. The individual producer is really only connected to the market, a harsh and inconstant mistress, not directly connected to particular other producers--PR are volatile. Direct PR between people are temporary and broken as soon as they are consummated (although we can imagine more stable relations, long-term contracts and "accounts" etc.).

The basic PR is purchase and sale. This differs from planned production as follows:
1. It is individual and voluntary, "the social relation takes the form of a private transaction
2. The continuity and relative permanence of PR rely on "momentary and discontiuous" transactions
3. "it unites particular individuals on the occasion of the transfer of thins between them, and it is limited to the transfer of things; relations among people acquire the form of equalization among things. I'm not sure what he means by "equalization" (or if this is a good translation), but I assume it means the process by which they are rendered equivalent and thus exchangable, the process of exchange itself.

Thus exchange unites relations among people and movement of things (loosely, PR and PF). In capitalism these are not organized in advance and therefore they rely on a synchronicity that isn't always acheivable--products fail to sell or people fail to get what they need when the social and material processes do not match. So now we have a distinction that builds off of and closely corresponds to PF and PR--THE MATERIAL PROCESS OF PRODUCTION and the SYSTEM OF PRODUCTION RELATIONS. The latter is basically PR, the former is the process corresponding to PF. When PR develop that don't directly correspond to the material process there is speculation, when PR don't develop to correspond to the material process there is a "sales crisis" (things are produced but do not circulate). This can be catastrophic although usually it's NBD.

Land, labor and means of production--i.e. landowners, laborers and capitalists, in capitalism-- must be brought together for production to take place. In capitalist society, these generally come together in one economic unit--a factory--which belongs to a capitalist. The way that people and things are combined in production relations characterizes any particular society.

These relations are established in advance in certain forms of society but in capitalism they only come about through exchange by virtue of what the individual owns or can bring to the exchange--the capitalist is someone who has capital and when he no longer has capital, he can no longer be a capitalist. The worker owns labor power but not the means/conditions under which labor can take place, the capitalist owns the means/conditions. Production relations are established through the movement of things, thus we have REIFICATION: stay tuned.