Distribution according to the most superficial interpretation is distribution of products;it is thus removed further from production and made quasi-independent of it.But before distribution becomes distribution of products,it is (1)distribution of the means of production,and (2)(which is another aspect of the same situation)distribution of the members of society among the various types of production (the subsuming of the individuals under definite relations Of production).It is evident that the distribution of products is merely a result of this distribution,which is comprised in the production process and determines the structure of production.
To examine production divorced from this distribution which is a constituent part of it,is obviously idle abstraction;whereas conversely the distribution of products is automatically determined by that distribution which is initially a factor of production.Ricardo,the economist of production par excellence ,whose object was the understanding of the distinct social structure of modern production,for this very reason declares that distribution,not production,is the proper subject of contemporary political economy.This is a witness to the banality of those economists who proclaim production as an eternal truth,and confine history to the domain of distribution.
The question as to the relation between that form of distribution that determines production and production itself,belongs obviously to the sphere of production.If it should be said that in this case at least,since production must proceed from a specific distribution of the means of production,distribution is to this extent antecedent to and a prerequisite of production,then the reply would be as follows.Production has indeed its conditions and prerequisites which are constituent elements of it.At the very outset these may have seemed to be naturally evolved.In the course of production,however,they are transformed from naturally evolved factors into historical ones,and although they may appear as natural pre-conditions for any one period,they are the historical result of another period.They are continuously changed by the process of production itself.For example,the employment of machinery led to changes in the distribution of both the means of production and the product.Modern large-scale landed property has been brought about not only by modern trade and modern industry,but also by the application of the latter to agriculture.
The above-mentioned questions can be ultimately resolved into this:
what role do general historical conditions play in production and how is production related to the historical development as a whole?This question clearly belongs to the analysis and discussion of production.
In the trivial form,however,in which these questions have been raised above,they can be dealt with quite briefly.Conquests may lead to either of three results.The conquering nation may impose its own mode of production upon the conquered people (this was done,for example,by the English in Ireland during this century,and to some extent in India);or it may refrain from interfering in the old mode of production and be content with tribute (e.g.,the Turks and Romans);or interaction may take place between the two,giving rise to a new system as a synthesis (this occurred partly in the Germanic conquests).In any case it is the mode of production --whether that of the conquering nation or of the conquered or the new system brought about by a merging of the two --that determines the new mode of distribution employed.Although the latter appears to be a pre-condition of the new period of production,it is in its turn a result of production,a result not simply occasioned by the historical evolution of production in general,but by a specific historical form of production.
The Mongols,for example,who caused devastation in Russia,acted in accordance with their mode of production,cattle-breeding,for which large uninhabited tracts are a fundamental requirement.The Germanic barbarians,whose traditional mode of production was agriculture with the aid of serfs and who lived scattered over the countryside,could the more easily adapt the Roman provinces to their requirements because the concentration of landed property carried out there had already uprooted the older agricultural relations.
It is a long-established view that over certain epochs people lived by plunder.But in order to be able to plunder,there must be something to be plundered,and this implies production.Moreover,the manner of plunder depends itself on the manner of production,e.g.,a stock-jobbing nation cannot be robbed in the same way as a nation of cowherds.
The means of production may be robbed directly in the form of slaves.
But in that case it is necessary that the structure of production in the country to which the slave is abducted admits of slave-labour,or (as in South America,etc.)a mode of production appropriate to slave-labour has to be evolved.
Laws may perpetuate a particular means of production,e.g.,land,in certain families.These laws acquire economic significance only if large-scale landed property is in keeping with the social mode of production,as for instance in Britain.Agriculture was carried on in France on a small scale,despite the existence of large estates,which were therefore parcelled out by the Revolution.But is it possible,e.g.,by law,to perpetuate the division of land into small lots?Landed property tends to become concentrated again despite these laws.The influence exercised by laws on the preservation of existing conditions of distribution,and the effect they thereby exert on production has to be examined separately.c.Lastly,Exchange and Circulation Circulation is merely a particular phase of exchange or of exchange regarded in its totality.
