/edu/ - Education

>>26008
>because it's actually deeply flawed
The problem with Cohen's analysis is that he spends an absurd amount of time trying to formalize something which is secundary to Marx's historical materialism. Iirc, most of the argument is concentrated on proving the base/superstructure dichotomy, which is simply not that relevant to Marx's historical materialism

For starters, Marx doesn't build a "theory of history". He's not creating a teleology, precisely because he rejects Hegel's conclusion that the development of the state and society must follow reason. Instead, he analyzes the root of change in society and its condition. His argument in essence goes about
>Man exteriorizes himself in the world through productive activity (labor). He changes the world around him to satisfy himself, to provide for his needs, to develop his interests etc (self-realization).
>In doing so, he enters relations of production to produce more effectively and to develop the forces of production required for his reproduction/production of self-realization
>However, as the forces of production are developed, new possibilities of the organization of labor emerge. Some classes (defined by their role in the productive process) obtain the possibility to further develop their self-realization by changing the organization, whilst for some, these changes can constitute a challenge to the position which they benefit from
>this creates antagonism between the class, which opens the possibility for clas conflict
This is the fundamental mechanism for class conflict. It's the idea that society's Mode of Production is defined in relation to labor, which itself is a social and creative process by which humans self-realize.

On the other hand, the base/superstructure dichotomy is more or less an attempt at formalizing how ideology, laws, and social norms emerge. Here, Marx's argument is only that these norms can only build themselves upon a pre-existing social arrangement, which can only occur by the socialization of labor. In other words : you can't build laws if you don't have anything to be their subjects. The superstructure thus regulates the mode of production because it is its object.
This does not mean however a linear causal mechanism, it simply means that one relies on the other to exist, albeit with a relative autonomy. It does not mean that the superstructure can't influence the base, nor that major changes within it require major changes in the productive process. The base conditions the superstructure, which in turn stabilizes or legitimizes the base.

As such, the dichotomy was simply an attempt at formalizing ideological and normative production, it's not meant to be the core of historical materialism. Engels letters to Joseph Bloch is all you need to read to understand why people dislike Cohen's attempt at formalizing historical materialism in a reductive base/superstructure sociology.

<"history is made in such a way that the final result always arises from conflicts between many individual wills, of which each in turn has been made what it is by a host of particular conditions of life. Thus there are innumerable intersecting forces, an infinite series of parallelograms of forces which give rise to one resultant — the historical event"

<"Marx and I are ourselves partly to blame for the fact that the younger people sometimes lay more stress on the economic side than is due to it. We had to emphasise the main principle vis-à-vis our adversaries, who denied it, and we had not always the time, the place or the opportunity to give their due to the other elements involved in the interaction. But when it came to presenting a section of history, that is, to making a practical application, it was a different matter and there no error was permissible. Unfortunately, however, it happens only too often that people think they have fully understood a new theory and can apply it without more ado from the moment they have assimilated its main principles, and even those not always correctly. And I cannot exempt many of the more recent "Marxists" from this reproach, for the most amazing rubbish has been produced in this quarter, too…."

https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1890/letters/90_09_21.htm