Content deleted Content added
No edit summary |
Added summary of the current status within Marxism; edited section on legality; add references to Robinson's theory. Tags: Visual edit Disambiguation links added |
||
Line 19:
==Applications and revisions ==
Marx's theory of base and superstructure can be found in the disciplines of [[political science]], [[sociology]], [[anthropology]], and [[psychology]] as utilized by Marxist scholars. Across these disciplines the base-superstructure relationship, and the contents of each, may take different forms.
Among Marxists, the very concept of 'base and superstructure' is contentious. The historian [[E. P. Thompson]] argue that:<blockquote>Meanwhile in serious intellectual circles the argument about basis/superstructure goes ''on and on and on''... A whole continent of discourse is being developed, with its metropolitan centres & its villas in the mountains, which rests, not upon the solid globe of historical evidence, but on the precarious point of a strained metaphor.<ref>{{Cite book |last=Thompson |first=E.P. |title=The Poverty of Theory & Other Essays |publisher=Merlin |year=1978 |___location=London |pages=330}}</ref></blockquote>[[Ellen Meiksins Wood]] says: 'The base/superstructure metaphor has always been more trouble than it is worth',<ref>Wood, E.M. (1990: 126). ‘Falling through the cracks: E.P. Thompson and the debate on base and superstructure.’ In Kaye and McClelland (1990: 124-152).</ref> while [[Terry Eagleton]] describes base and superstructure as 'this now universally reviled paradigm'.<ref>{{Cite journal |last=Eagleton |first=Terry |date=2000 |title=Base and superstructure revisited |journal=New Literary History |volume=31 |issue=2 |pages=231-40}}</ref>
However, other Marxists continue to insist on the paradigm's importance. For example, in Paul Thomas' words:<blockquote>Without Marx’s juxtaposition of base to superstructure we would probably not be speaking of social contradictions at all but would instead be discussing science, technology, production, labor, the economy, & the state along lines very different from those that are commonplace today.<ref>Thomas, P. (1991). ‘Critical reception: Marx then and now.’ In Carver (1991: 23-54), ''The Cambridge Companion To Marx''. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.</ref></blockquote>Similarly, from [[Chris Harman]]:<blockquote>Far from ignoring the impact of the ‘superstructure’ on the ‘base’, as many ignorant critics have claimed for more than a century, Marx builds his whole account of human history around it.<ref>Harman, C. (1998). ''Marxism and History. Two Essays''. London: Bookmarks.</ref></blockquote>Or again, from [[Stuart Hall|Stuart Hall (cultural theorist)]]:<blockquote>Of the many problems which perforce Marx left in an ‘undeveloped’ state, none is more crucial than that of ‘base & superstructure’.<ref>Hall, S. (2019: 143). ''Essential Essays. Volume 1''. Morley, D. (ed.). London: Duke University Press.</ref></blockquote>
===Max Weber===
Line 41 ⟶ 45:
|text=One puts the infrastructure on one side– the economic, the serious– and on the other, the superstructure, of which ideology is a part, thus rejecting the phenomena of desire in ideology. It’s a perfect way to ignore how desire works within the infrastructure, how it invests in it, how it takes part in it, how, in this respect, it organizes power and the repressive system. We do not say: ideology is a [[trompe l’oeil]] (or a concept that refers to certain illusions) We say: there is no ideology, it is an illusion. That’s why it suits orthodox Marxism and the Communist Party so well. Marxism has put so much emphasis on the theme of ideology to better conceal what was happening in the USSR: a new organization of repressive power. There is no ideology, there are only organizations of power once it is admitted that the organization of power is the unity of desire and the economic infrastructure.<ref>Guattari, Félix. ''Chaosophy: Texts and Interviews 1972-1977'', edited by Sylvère Lotringer, Semiotext(e), Los Angeles, 2009, p. 38.</ref>
}}
=== R.J. Robinson ===
Robinson argues that Engels' original argument that superstructures are 'relatively autonomous' of their base is correct but that the detail of the argument (which is based mainly on assertion) is unconvincing. Phrases such as 'in the last instance' or 'reflection' are equally undefined.
Developing the argument that superstructures exist to deal with contradictions in the base already put forward by [[Antonio Gramsci]], [[Terry Eagleton]] and others, he argues that it is this contradictoriness that forces superstructures to exist outside the base. However, because they exist to solve problems in the base, they affect the base, yet changes in the base (and therefore in these contradictions) still drive superstructures. Hence the 'relative' element of 'relative autonomy'.
At the same time, the fact that superstructures must solve problems that their own base evidently cannot means that they must produce products and results that the base cannot. So there must be at least some aspects of the forces and relations of production superstructures use that are different from the base. Therefore a superstructures' system of production' must be in some sense different from the forces and relations present in the base. For example, legal systems are controlled by appointed authorities (judges) not property owners. Hence the 'autonomous' element of 'relative autonomy'.<ref>{{Cite book |last=Robinson |first=R.J. |title=Base and Superstructure. Understanding Marxism's Second Biggest Idea |publisher=Putnery:2 |year=2023 |isbn=9781838193843 |edition=2nd |___location=Alton |pages=Chs 3-5}}</ref>
===Can the base be separated from the superstructure?===
[[John Plamenatz]] makes two counterclaims regarding the clear-cut separation of the base and superstructure. The first is that economic structure is independent from production in many cases, with relations of production or property also having a strong effect on production.<ref>{{cite book|author-last=Lukes |author-first=Steven |title=The Nature of Political Theory |editor-first1=David |editor-last1=Miller |editor-first2=Larry |editor-last2=Siedentop |___location=Oxford, Oxfordshire |publisher=[[Clarendon Press]] |date=1983 |pages=104}}</ref>
The second claim is that relations of production can only be defined with normative terms—this implies that social life and humanity's morality cannot be truly separated as both are defined in a normative sense.<ref>{{cite book|author-last=Lukes |author-first=Steven |title=The Nature of Political Theory |editor-first1=David |editor-last1=Miller |editor-first2=Larry |editor-last2=Siedentop |___location=Oxford, Oxfordshire |publisher=[[Clarendon Press]] |date=1983 |pages=105}}</ref> Robinson observes that all economic activity (and perhaps all human activity) is normative - for example, 'it is unlikely that many enter employment without a sense, unspoken or otherwise, that it is a legitimate or proper thing to do'.<ref>{{Cite book |last=Robinson |first=R.J. |title=Base and Superstructure. Understanding Marxism's Second Biggest Idea |publisher=Putney:2 |year=2023 |isbn=9781838193843 |edition=2nd |___location=Alton |pages=194, n.2}}</ref>
===The legality question===
A criticism{{weasel inline|date=October 2012}} of the base and superstructure theory is that [[property relations]] (supposedly part of the base and the driving force of history) are actually defined by legal relations, an element of the superstructure. This suggests that the distinction between base and superstructure is incoherent, and undermines the theory as a whole. Defenders of the theory claim that Marx believed in property relations and social relations of production as two separate entities.<ref>{{cite journal|author-last=Cahan |author-first=Jean Axelrad |title= The Concept of Property in Marx's Theory of History: A Defense of the Autonomy of the Socioeconomic Base |journal=[[Science & Society]] |volume=58 |number=4 |date=Winter 1994–1995 |pages=394–395 |jstor=40403448 |url=https://www.jstor.org/stable/40403448 }}</ref> [[G.A. Cohen]]
Robinson argues that legality doers not makes exploitation possible, but only defines the rules through which it is managed socially when it becomes problematic. Legal definitions of wage labour were only articulated when those workers began to show their strength. Long before that, wage labour and a working class had existed without any notion of a formal contract between legal equals. Law regarding slavery likewise concerned mainly rules for relations between slave-holders (buying and selling, warranties, etc.), and have never been required for slavery to exist. Conversely, in modern societies, domestic labour is barely addressed by law; plainly this is not because it is not prevalent, but because it is not sufficiently contentious to become a matter of significant political dispute, and therefore to require a legal form.<ref>{{Cite book |last=Robinson |first=R.J. |title=Base and Superstructure. Understanding Marxism's Second Biggest Idea |publisher=Putney:2 |year=2023 |isbn=9781838193843 |edition=2nd |___location=Alton |pages=190-3}}</ref>
===Neoliberalism and the state===
| |||