>>> "Tahir Wood"
“Missing from Marx’s oeuvre is any concept of culture, of formation and re-formation (Bildung).
^^^
CB: This is interesting, but what about superstructure ? That corresponds to culture. Marx doesn't spend a lot of time writing about superstructure, but he talks about it some. Anyway, it would be interesting to see how Rose develops the concept of culture. Her reference to "representations and subjectivity", and "structural change" below are interesting
Tahir: She would argue that the notion of superstructure as culture is exactly one of the (abstract) conceptual identities that leads to the kinds of gross simplification she mentions. ^^^ CB: I'm not sure Marx's discussion of superstructure can accurately be described as a gross simplification. He refers to "legal and political superstructure" and " the legal, political, religious, artistic or philosophic – in short, ideological forms in which men become conscious of this conflict and fight it out. "http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1859/critique-pol-economy/preface.htm
In 1843, he wrote an essay on critiquing Hegel"s Philosophy of law, the famous introduction of which gives a rather complex and subtle, rather than grossly simple ,discussion of religion, and the content complexly discusses law. Many other of his essays discuss politics complexly. Marx also discusses philosophy as in the Economic and Philosophic Manuscripts of 1844, and elsewhere and the discussion is far from grossly simple ( take a look at it). Engels also discusses all these areas complexly. So, Rose might want to reconsider the idea that Marx and Engels' writing on superstructure or culture is grossly simple.
^^^^
Tahir: For culture to be more than abstract like this, it must involve the re-formation of consciousness, as, in Hegelian terms, a reconciliation of the concept with the intuition. Otherwise the simplification will simply lead to another terror, to impose 'socialism' from above using the power of the state. Therefore this is also a critique of statism. The answer to your question is already embedded in the quotes, I would say. Tahir
^^^^ CB: See references above for concrete, not abstract, and complex , not simple, discussions of culture or superstructure.
As to re-formation ("transformation "?_ of consciousness, the" Preface to A Contribution to the Critique of Political Economy" suggests that the reformation of social consciousness or culture or superstructure is determined by contradictions between it and materials conditions.
"The totality of these relations of production constitutes the economic structure of society, the real foundation, on which arises a legal and political superstructure and to which correspond definite forms of social consciousness. The mode of production of material life conditions the general process of social, political and intellectual life. It is not the consciousness of men that determines their existence, but their social existence that determines their consciousness. At a certain stage of development, the material productive forces of society come into conflict with the existing relations of production or – this merely expresses the same thing in legal terms – with the property relations within the framework of which they have operated hitherto. From forms of development of the productive forces these relations turn into their fetters. Then begins an era of social revolution. The changes in the economic foundation lead sooner or later to the transformation of the whole immense superstructure.
In studying such transformations it is always necessary to distinguish between the material transformation of the economic conditions of production, which can be determined with the precision of natural science, and the legal, political, religious, artistic or philosophic – in short, ideological forms in which men become conscious of this conflict and fight it out. Just as one does not judge an individual by what he thinks about himself, so one cannot judge such a period of transformation by its consciousness, but, on the contrary, this consciousness must be explained from the contradictions of material life, from the conflict existing between the social forces of production and the relations of production." http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1859/critique-pol-economy/preface.htm
To the extent that
simplification will simply (smile) lead to another terror, to impose 'socialism' from above using the power of the state, surely Marx's understanding of culture or superstructure cannot be labeled "simplistic", and therefore his understanding would not simply lead to terror, or imposition of socialism from above.
On the other hand Marx did say"
"Force is the midwife of every old society pregnant with a new one. It is itself an economic power." http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1867-c1/ch31.htm
What do you see as the role of the state in a transformation to socialism , particularly in a situation where capitalist states still exist ? ^^^^^
This message has been scanned for malware by SurfControl plc. www.surfcontrol.com