• gender,

• disability,

• age,

• “race” and nation,

• judicial slavery, and

• private property.

Other relations of production common to this mode of production are:

• commodity production,

• money, and

• capital.

• a common language,

• a common territory,

• a common economic life,

• and a common culture.

 
Common language and common culture are social formations; a common territory and common economic life are both economic formations. When a community has all of these qualities, it should be recognized by Marxists as a nation, and capable and deserving and desirous of the right of self-determination.
 
Nations are formed “only as a result of lengthy and systematic intercourse, as a result of people living together generation after generation.” Nations, like all historical phenomena, are subject to the law of change; they have history; they have beginnings, and they have endings.
 
Nations are, then, self-aware communities that share both economic and social relations, and to which individuals commonly feel strong attachments. Nationhood could not exist until the material basis for unifying large regions was developed: sufficiently advanced technology, the construction of roads, the advent of long-distance trade, and so forth. Stalin identifies the period of nation-forming to be the epoch of rising capitalism, the period beginning in approximately 1500 or 1600 and resulting, mostly through violence, of the welding of disparate groups into nations for the very purpose of exploitation and mobilization of a large-scale workforce by the growing capitalist powers.
 
The creation of nations is not a function that was confined to the unification of regions at the end of the feudal period through the welding together of those who already shared a common language. One of the latest of these creations can be seen in the Unification of Italy, which fused the peoples of Italy, who considered themselves to be of different ethnic groups and lacked any real identity as Italians, which occurred as late as 1871.
 
But nations were and have been themselves constituted by the violence of capitalism. Colonial transportation and imperialism have created, from disparate peoples, nations. Colonial oppression is a form of national oppression.

Gender, in the abstract, is the class-ordered division of labor and property. Patriarchy is the logic of gender that forms the basis (or substructure) of all consequent patriarchal class societies, which from ancient times was predominant across the Old World, comprising most of Eurasia and much of Africa, Oceania, and the Americas. Yet patriarchy is not the only possible, nor the only existing, organizational structure of gender – gender emerges according to the earliest divisions in labor – nor is every society fundamentally labor-divided, that is to say gendered. However, owing mainly to colonialism – although, long before them, also merely to migrations – patriarchal gender became global in scope. Patriarchy, therefore, forms the most ancient substructural bedrock of a globally connected modernity. This is why our analysis is concerned specifically with patriarchal gender ontology.
 
The principle element of patriarchy is its gender binary. This binary took form during the earliest division of labor (reproductive vs. productive), and the transition to collective-exclusionary property, especially with the advent of the home during the Neolithic Revolution, the transition to early agricultural society. Expressed simply, this binary is the division between womanhood and manhood; although, it is not really quite so simple. A common mistake, including among feminists, is to conflate the ideological reflection of patriarchal gender with its structural substance. That is to say, that the gender-categories of “man” and “woman” are, as used in common speech, merely ancient ideological conventions, categorical forms, aspect of social identity arising from actual productive relations.
 
Likewise, the existence of other gender-categories than “man” and “woman” (non-binaristic genders) is possible within patriarchal societies – such gender-categories have also existed from ancient times to the present day in a variety of traditional and (in modern times) coercive patriarchal societies – yet necessarily without ever meaningfully eroding the gender binary, the very “core” of patriarchy.
 
During the modern-colonial period, gender became inextricable from race, with ancient patriarchal-gender categories subject to a fundamental alteration. The racialization of gender is not the first such major alteration in the structure of the patriarchy, but it is probably the only such alteration on a comparable, worldwide scale since the emergency of the patriarchal class-structure.
 
How does gender structure class? First, through the division of labor. Simply put, productive laborers and reproductive laborers constitute, at first, two separate classes. These classes construct ideological gender-categories, which over the millennia, have become abstracted from their substructural (that is to say, labor-economic) substance. It would therefore be incorrect to say genders, by which we mean here social identities, are classes. But it would be incorrect to say that gender does not structure class. In fact, a class-distinction between reproductive and productive laborers prevails today. Waged workers in industry; unwaged workers in the home; these are two separate classes on account of different productive relations. However, under capitalism, reproductive labor is becoming increasingly proletarianized, brought out of the home and into industry, and made more efficient.

The three primary classes of capitalism are: the bourgeoisie, the petit-bourgeoisie, and the proletariat.
 
The capitalist mode of production can be expressed as M-C-M’ (production), C-M-C (circulation), and M-C (consumption) where M = money, C = commodity, and M’ = money increased.

Capital is not a static definition, but rather constitutes an economic relation. Machinery that forms the instruments of production, such as industrial machinery and property that is a condition of production, such as farmland or the physical fabric of a factory, are both forms of capital (see means of production, the), money that is used to set labor in motion is all capital. Money used to buy food and so forth is not capital, unless that food is being used to pay laborers.

Capital is any material investment of any kind that results in the investor receiving more in return than they invest.

Marx gives us the equation M-C-M’, that is (money)  is exchanged for -> (commodity) is exchanged for -> (money with increased value, i.e. initial money + surplus value).

Any money or object (including means of production) used to gain money prime (money increased) is in or performing the capital relation, whether it is in the form of liquid currency or not.

(metonymically)
A shorthand for capitalists and all of their agents. (Thus, “capital is the bastion of reaction”).

Age is thus a kind of actual disability-relation, and functions as disability above.