Abstract

The relationship between the two stages of Cohen's functional interpretation of Marx's theory of history is transitive, meaning that the superstructure stabilizes just those facts about production relations required by the productive forces for their development. It follows that the level of development of the productive forces cannot alone explain why a certain type of economic structure endures stably: an appropriate superstructure is also needed. Yet stage two can stand separately since it does not depend on any particular explanation of the nature of the economic structure. Cohen offers an overly restrictive account of why the base needs a superstructure, based on a narrow conception of the economic base as a framework of power. The functional requirements of the economic base must be seen in relation to the "way of producing" through which the productive forces are developed. Cohen's intentional elaboration of how forces select appropriate relations can, in principle, be extended to encompass the transformation of the superstructure. However, this requires a convincing link between the underlying human rationality and the proximate class struggle