Considerations on Marx's Base and Superstructure

In: Social science quarterly, Band 65, Heft 4, S. 940-954

Abstract

An examination & critique of three theses concerning Karl Marx's base & superstructure: (1) the fundamentalist thesis, which regards base & superstructure as externally or causally connected; (2) the internal relatedness thesis, which sees them as mutually determining or dialectically related; & (3) the overdetermination thesis, which attempts to conceptualize some degree of autonomy for the superstructure while still according a determination "in the last instance" to the base. The appropriateness of this base & superstructure model for the conduct of social inquiry is discussed. In Philosophical Issues in the Study of Historical Materialism, Robert Grafstein (U of Georgia, Athens) accepts Smith's criticism of Bertell Ollman, but finds that his objection to Louis Althusser's & Etienne Balibar's understanding of determination needs to be qualified or developed in greater detail. His criticism of G. A. Cohen is at times similarly underdeveloped, & at other times inaccurate. In Historical Materialism Reconsidered, Steven B. Smith rejects Grafstein's claim that Marxism is a "particular empirical theory" that "needs fetishism of a sort" as false, arguing that historical materialism is a critical or dialectical theory that differs in kind from fetishizing theories of the scientific type. The truth of historical materialism is seen to be vouchsafed by both the empirical accuracy of its predictions & its ability to articulate the real or rational interests of the economic agents to whom it is addressed. 35 References. Modified HA.