RETHINKING SUBSISTENCE PRODUCTION Benjamin Thomas Benjamin Thomas is an independent anthropologist, residing in Brisbane, Australia, Production of the means of subsistence is a condition of all production in general Subsistence production is an essential element of the production process in every society and is necessary for the reproduction of human life.? Marx argued in Capital that the reproduction of life and living working capacity was necessary for extended reproduction in capitalism.’ Social reproduction is the process through which human life and capacity is continuously produced and reproduced.‘ Capitalist production involves two spheres of social reproduction: extended reproduction (or accumulation) and subsistence production. In capitalist production, subsistence production involves work related to pregnancy, childbirth, nursing and education of children. It also involves the labor required in the production and transformation of food, clothing, housing and the physical and psychological work of sexuality.’ In non-capitalist societies, subsistence production essentially involves the production of the means of subsistence. That is to say that subsistence production is the social production of social subsistence use values.® In these productive systems, subsistence production is social production and social production is subsistence production. A separation between subsistence production and social production only appears in non- capitalist societies with the emergence of classes and when the dominant class begins to expropriate from the others a part of their subsistence products. When there emerges a generalized commodity exchange and socially determined wage-labor system in these non- capitalist societies, subsistence production becomes relegated to a domain of production which is considered not properly social and which may be regarded as being “outside” or “apart” from social Dialectical Anthropology 24: 99-105, 1999, © 1999 Kluwer Academie Publishers. Printed in the Netherlands100 work.’ This brief paper presents several mathematical models to help understand human subsistence production in non-capitalist societies. What characterizes all productive systems is the way in which human beings appropriate and transform the natural resources to satisfy their needs and wants. All human populations employ techniques in order to appropriate and transform resources from the environment. Human beings appropriate physical objects from the natural environment and create specific use-values for these objects.* This appropriation involves a combination of technical rules, resources, tools, human labor, to obtain a product which is socially useful.’ Thus, the appropriation of nature “ constitutes an ordered series of operations. . .”'° The utilization of labor-power in the production of use-vaiues among populations of human beings is not the same as the direct, individual appropriation of the use-values of natural resources by non-human animals." This essential difference “. . . consists in the fact that animals at the most collect while. [tumans} produce.” Human beings “. . . begin to distinguish themselves from animals as soon as they produce their means of subsistence." Unlike other primate species, who satisfy their needs through the direct, individual appropriation of naturally occurring use values, humans satisfy their needs through production." Human beings “. . . produce society in order to live.”'’ The transformation of nature by human beings in production is the basis of all human history.'® Theoretical contributions to Marxist anthropology have been criticized as “unsatisfying.”"” These contributions have provided “ « new source[s] of obscurity... * and are *. . . difficult and barbarously phrased”"* with * jargonized modes of expression.” It is therefore necessary to break away from or transcend the project of French Marxist anthropology, that is, the “highly nebuloas” and “mystical” concept of “structure”” inherent in the Structurelist’s reading of Marx’s Capital with the concern for uncovering hidden “structures” inherent in precapitalist or non- capitalist societies. This structuralist project has seen the extension of the theoretical construction of “mode of production” to non- capitalist social formations and is “misguided.”” The root of the problem with the project of French Marxist Anthropology is a “101 failure of theory. . . [and the] real problem lies within Marxist anthropology itself." A different theoretical framework is suggested, one which is based on productive and reproductive processes. This theoretical framework is inspired by the work of Claude Meillassoux and begins with social reproduction and follows the cycles leading from production to consumption to new Production. These cycles involve the constant interactions between the “. . . individual bearers of energy, energy as the means of production, and production of the means of subsistence as the means of reproduction of producers.” In a chapter entitled “The alimentary structures of kinship” in Maidens, Meal and Capital, Meillassoux argues that “Production and reproduction are achieved through circulation which . . . is only analytically separable from the process of production... ** In ‘the domestic community the “determined” production is that of subsistence goods whose transformation into “human energy” ensures the continuity and reconstruction, that is the reproduction of the community. The production of energy and of food are two aspects of the same productive process. ‘This is the basis of Meillassoux’s discussion of the process of production, or as he refers to it, the “, . . reproduction of human energy. . . .: energy - subsistence - energy.” For Meillassoux, *. . . reproduction takes place by producing subsistence goods—the means of producing human energy—and distributing this energy in the productive cycle,” that is between the past, present and future producers. The demographic growth of a society is dependent on its capacity to produce enough to subsist, and on the share devoted to reproduction, Meillassoux concludes that because “. . . subsistence is the element by which producers are both produced and reproduced, it is through its appropriation that production and its composition should be analyzed." Meillassoux’s formula for reproduction is stated as: BB = a(A+B+C) (simple reproduction) [producer reproduces 1 replacement]102 BB > a(A+B+C) (extended reproduction) [producer reproduces >1 replacement] where: A=preproducing child B=producing adult C=post-producing old a=annual consumption per head b=anmual production per productive individual According to Meillassoux, the rate of domestic reproduction (Rd) is: BB-aB+C) S$ Rd = ——— aa aa IS = gross surplus product} The implications of the above is that a formula for surplus labor (2B) can be expressed simply as: >E > EB where : annual amount of energy produced B = annual production per producer We can elaborate further on Meillassoux’s formula for the amount of energy produced per annum by each producer (E): E = (Eb+Ei)+(Ed+Er)103 where: Eb = production of subsistence goods (necessary for production and reproduction) Ei = investment production of means of production Ed = expended on other economic activities Er = remainder energy hence: E = (Eb+Ei)+(Ed+Er) That is, annual energy production (E) is equal to the sum of the labor energy necessary for the production of the means of subsistence (Eh) and the investment in the production of the means of production (Bi) plus the sum of the energy expended in other non- subsistence labor (Ed) and any remainder (Er). To determine the energy-surplus (Er): Er = E-((Eb+Ei)+(Ed)} Economic reproduction occurs through the production of subsistence goods, that is, the means of producing human energy necessary for the production of human energy, etc. Human reproduction is completely subordinate to this process of the production of subsistence products. In this production system the control over juman energy forms the basis for control over producers. Energy never belongs to the individual producer, it takes the form of the product and circulates within the community with associated socially defined use-values. Energy is wansferred and is reproduced by both the producer's self-maintenance and the investment in future producers. Demographic growth will always be dependent on a given productive system's capacity to produce enough to subsist and on the amount of surplus-product necessary for reproduction. ‘The Suki-speaking people of Lake Saru, Western Province, Papua New Guinea rely on bunting, fishing, sago processing and limited horticulture. The Suki practice a unique method of sago processing,los squeezing sago with their feet. Sago processing labour can be evaluated in terms of the ratio of labor and energy input to energy output using the modified formula of Meillassoux’s: E = (Eb+Ei)+(Rd+Er) To evaluate the net energy provided by sago processing it is necessary to gather quantitative data on the labor time and the volume of sage pith processed. It is also important to keep detailed records of the times spent traveling to the sago processing site (T1), the time spent at the site (T2) and any pith wasted (W). We need to modify the above formula to take these factors into consideration: (Eb+Ei)+(Ed+Er) =- —- -W TL+ 72 E This formula evaluates the energy appropriated per hour. Sago contains on average 230 Keal per 100 g portion. If we are certain of the other variable we can easily calculate the net energy expressed in Kcal. This mathematical model can casily be applied to other subsistence activities. For example, when we know that agile wallaby (Walabia agilis) contains 78.3 Kcal per 100 g we would be able to determine the net energy appropriated per hour when Suki ‘men decide to hunt wallaby by recording the time spent hunting and any waste (W) when the carcass is processed. ‘The formula for this would be: (Eb+Ei)+(Ed+Er) Es 1 -w ‘The formula required for fishing activities would be the same as hunting. Tt would be the same as sago for other forms of horticulture. The net hourly energy produced by cultivating bananas, which have an average of 78.1 Keal, would require the modification of Mcillassoux’s formulas:105 (Eb+Ei)+(Ed+Er) E=— a T1+ 72 and: Eb(kg) E (Keal) = == x y 100g y = Keal per 100 g Eb Itis also necessary to collect data on the butchering and distribution of hunter’s prey. For example, agile wallabies are butchered by Suki hunters and divided into head, forequarter (X 2), rump, tail, hindquarter (X 2), offal, and gut/waste. The average weight of each of these portions (percentage of total weight) and the recipient of these subsistence products (relationship to hunter) needs to be recorded. A Suki hunter would be expected to appropriate for himself 15% of 15 kg of agile wallaby meat (2.25 kg of meat). With this type of quantitative data it is possible to calculate a hunters’ distribution of a wallaby or any other prey. If a truly dialectical materialist Marxism is to “. . . provide the framework for the ethnology of a process so distinctive of humans as the social production of social subsistence use-values,”” then the development of new mathematical-based models for the analysis of subsistence production is essential in the future. Mathematical-based ‘models are also necessary in the development of new theoretical approaches in Marxist anthropology. Future theoretical approaches to the analysis of subsistence production in Marxist anthropology need to focus oa rhe production and appropriation of human energy. Notes. 1. Karl Mara, Capital: A Critical Analysis of Capitalist Production, Vol. 3 (Moscow: Progress Publishers, 1965 [1867)), p. 352. 2. Karl Marx, Capital. Volume 1. Der Produktionsprocess des Kapitals. Book Two (London: Dent, 1972), p. 621106 10. UL 2 13, 4, 16, 17, 18, 19, 21, 22. 24. 25. 26. 21. Wid. p. 621 Veronika Bennholdt-Thomsen, “Subsistence Production and Extended Reproduction: A Contribution to the Discussion about Modes of Production,” Journal of Peasant Studies, vol. 9 (1982), p. 242. Ibid. p. 242. David Hakken, “Studying Work: Anthropological and Marxist perspectives,” in D. Hakken and H. Lessinger eds., Perspective in U.S. Marxist Anthropology (Boulder, CO: Westview Press in cooperation with the Council for Marxist Anthropology, 1987), p. 71 Bennholdt-Thomsen, “Subsistence Production and Extended Reproduction, p. 246. Benjamin Thomas, “The Utah School of Evolutionary Ecology: A Cost- Benefit and Matcrialist-Functional Veneer of Superstructure,” Dialectical Anthropology, Wol. 17 (1992), pp. 419. Maurice Godelier, Rationality and Irrational Cambridge University Press, 1972), p. 264. Ibid. p. 17, ‘Thomas, “The Utah School of Evolutionary Ecology,” p. 419. Frederick Engels, “Engels to J. Bloch: September 21-22, 1890,” in Karl Marx and Frederick Engels, Selected Correspondence (Moscow: Foreign Languages Publishing, 1953), p. 368. Karl Marx and Frederick Engels, The German Ideology (Moscow: Progress Publisher, 1968), p. 31 Engene. E. Ruyle, “Rethinking Marxist Anthropology.” in Hakken and Lessinger eds , Perspective in U.S. Marxist Anthropology, p. 33. Maurice Godelier, The Mental and the Material. Thought Economy and Society (Norfolk: The Thetford Press, 1986), p. 1. Bid., p. 1 Ruyle, “Rethinking Marxist Anthropology,” p. 24 M. Bloch, Marxism and Anthropology: The History of a Relationship (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1983), p. v Ruyle, “Rethinking Marxist Anthropology,” p. 25. Bid... p. 25, Haken, “Studying Work,” p. 58 Royle, “Rethinking Marxist Anthropology,” p. 24 Claude Meillassoux, “Historical Modalities and the Exploitation and Over: Exploitation of Labor,” Critique of Anthropology, vol. 4 (1979), p. 7. Claude Meillassoux, Maidens, Meal and Capital: Capitalism and the Domestic Economy (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1981), p.50. Ibid., p. 50. Wid, p. 51 Haken, “Studying Work,” p. 75. in Beonomics (Cambridge: