Social relations of production is another way of referring to the class structure. The social relations of production refers to the social relationships that people enter into in the production or delivery of goods and services. From a Marxist perspective these social relations of production are inevitably those of owners and non-owners or those who control the work and those who do not control the work.
In social relations of production way of thinking, social class is founded on the economy of any society and it is the pattern of class relations that give a society its central character.
This study goes beyond these assumptions to explore social relations connecting production and consumption of tourist commodities. - Culture, Economy and Tourism Commodities - Social Relations of Production and Consumption - Irena Ateljevic, Stephen Doorne.
The Perception of
Class - Social and Technical Relations of Production - STEPHEN J.
McNAMEE, University of Dayton, REEVE VANNEMAN, University of Maryland
This research examines the extent to which the social relations of production are perceived as important components of class position. Following Poulantzas, we investigate economic (ownership-self-employment) political (work authority), and ideological (the mental-manual division) relations of production. The effects of these three dimensions on class perceptions are examined by an analysis of the determinants of class self-placements.
Using two different national samples we find good support that each dimension is related to class placements in the working or middle class, even after controlling for the usual status measures of occupational prestige, education, and income. Measures of job complexity (the technical rather than the social relations of production), based on the DOT Data and Things codes, are not related to class placements; nor is occupational prestige strongly related to these class placements. For class perceptions at least, the social relations of production appear more important than the technical relations.
Flexible Production, Rigid
Jobs: Lessons from the Clothing Industry
IAN M. TAPLIN, Wake Forest University
Contextualized in the debate on the nature of post-Fordism, this study looks at changes in work organization that accompany firm attempts to increase their competitive position. It argues that changes in the technical and social relations of production in a labor intensive industry simply amount to labor intensification. Firms achieve productivity and quality improvements plus manufacturing flexibility by using new technology to deskill or replace skilled workers and by reconfiguring work to maximize work effort by semiskilled workers. These technological changes and work reorganization permit manufacturing flexibility but in ways that resemble modifications of Fordism rather than a new production paradigm.
The Nature and Growth of
In the process of production, human beings work not only upon nature, but also upon one another. They produce only by working together in a specified manner and reciprocally exchanging their activities. In order to produce, they enter into definite connections and relations to one another, and only within these social connections and relations does their influence upon nature operate and production takes place.
These social relations between the producers, and the conditions under which they exchange their activities and share in the total act of production, will naturally vary according to the character of the means of production. With the discovery of a new instrument of warfare, the firearm, the whole internal organization of the army was necessarily altered, the relations within which individuals compose an army and can work as an army were transformed, and the relation of different armies to another was likewise changed.
We thus see that the social relations within which individuals produce, the social relations of production, are altered, transformed, with the change and development of the material means of production, of the forces of production. The relations of production in their totality constitute what is called the social relations, society, a society at a definite stage of historical development, a society with peculiar, distinctive characteristics. Ancient society, feudal society, bourgeois class society, are such totalities of relations of production, each of which denotes a particular stage of development in the history of mankind. Capital also is a social relation of production. It is a bourgeois relation of production , a relation of production of bourgeois society.
Social Relations and the Keynesian Multiplier - Massimo De Angelis, Department of Economics, University of East London
This paper offers a reading of the simple Keynesian multiplier through Karl Marx's lenses. The objective is to make explicit, for the Keynesian multiplier, what from a Marxian perspective should be made explicit in any discourse about the capitalist economy, namely the role of the social relations of production. Since within given historical periods social relations are expressed in institutional forms, my analysis also gives some general insights about the basic institutional requirements assumed within the general Keynesian framework, requirements without which the Keynesian multiplier could not be operational.
High Schools and the
Social Relations of Production - Shea, Brent Mack
Abstract: Educational research has supported the thesis that educational reforms fail to achieve equality because of similarity of structure between the places of work and schooling. Analysis of the fact that schools replicate the structure of social relations of production presents several problems, including a challenging consumption interpretation, the uncertainty of impact of schooling on noncognitive student attributes, the maladaptive role of schooling in relation to the needs of production, and the absence of an adequate data base. The occurrence of an alienating hidden curriculum, which reproduces the social relations of production through emphasis on conformity, external rewards, and various noncognitive behaviors, has been supported by Ivan Illich but refuted by Herbert Gintis on the basis of historical, economic, and educational research. Current worker dissatisfaction is not easy to explain if it is true that classroom socialization anticipates the social relations of the work place. There is not enough current evidence to say that the structure of social relations in high school is different for students in academic tracks than it is for those in nonacademic tracks.