Base and Superstructure
Base and superstructure
'In the social production of their life, men enter into definite relations that are indispensable and independent of their will, relations of production which correspond to a definite stage of development of their material productive forces. The sum total of these relations of production constitutes the economic structure of society, the real basis, on which rises a legal and political superstructure, and to which correspond definite forms of social consciousness' (1)
The above quote contains some of the most contentious points of Marxist theory; the exposition of the base/superstructure distinction and the clear use of functional explanation, capture the essence of the question. Modern scholars disagree over these two points: They ask, how appropriate is the base/superstructure distinction, and how valid is the use of functional explanation. Steven Lukes suggests that it is time to 'consign the distinction to the scrapheap'. In this essay, the authority of this condemnation shall be assessed, and it shall be found that it is still possible to salvage the distinction from the trashpile of social and historical theory.
First, some definitions. The base is made up of the relations of production in a society, which is above pointed out to be 'indispensable and independent' of the wills of the actors in these relations. The typical example used to describe relations of production is property relations. A capitalist economy functions due to the property relations which organise labour, capital and resources. This base 'corresponds' to a stage of the development of productive forces, or the level of technology. These productive forces are what determine the relations of production, and thus the economic base. If technology proceeds to the extent that production is hampered due to the relations of production, then the economic structure must change. The superstructure is the set of 'non-economic institutions whose character is explained
'In the social production of their life, men enter into definite relations that are indispensable and independent of their will, relations of production which correspond to a definite stage of development of their material productive forces. The sum total of these relations of production constitutes the economic structure of society, the real basis, on which rises a legal and political superstructure, and to which correspond definite forms of social consciousness' (1)
The above quote contains some of the most contentious points of Marxist theory; the exposition of the base/superstructure distinction and the clear use of functional explanation, capture the essence of the question. Modern scholars disagree over these two points: They ask, how appropriate is the base/superstructure distinction, and how valid is the use of functional explanation. Steven Lukes suggests that it is time to 'consign the distinction to the scrapheap'. In this essay, the authority of this condemnation shall be assessed, and it shall be found that it is still possible to salvage the distinction from the trashpile of social and historical theory.
First, some definitions. The base is made up of the relations of production in a society, which is above pointed out to be 'indispensable and independent' of the wills of the actors in these relations. The typical example used to describe relations of production is property relations. A capitalist economy functions due to the property relations which organise labour, capital and resources. This base 'corresponds' to a stage of the development of productive forces, or the level of technology. These productive forces are what determine the relations of production, and thus the economic base. If technology proceeds to the extent that production is hampered due to the relations of production, then the economic structure must change. The superstructure is the set of 'non-economic institutions whose character is explained