According to a sophisticated reading of Marxs theory of historical materialism to what extent is the legal system the product of, or determined by the economic system? Do you think that Marx, on this sophisticated reading, underestimated the significan

Authors Avatar

According to a sophisticated reading of Marx’s theory of historical materialism to what extent is the legal system the product of, or determined by the economic system? Do you think that Marx, on this sophisticated reading, underestimated the significance of law in modern societies?

The core of Marx’s historical materialism contains a rejection of the largely idealistic philosophies, which credits the human mind with the ability to transcend the circumstances of existence to make their own history. Materialism states that human behaviour is determined by patterns of evolution conditioned by external forces, and Marx insists that the consciousness is conditioned by social relations, which inturn are conditioned by the forces of production. However, it is a problematic when applied to the analysis of law, for legal institutions and rules are often perceived as purposive human creations, the products of deliberate conscious action. The different readings of theory of historical materialism have to explain how these consciously created laws are ultimately determined by material circumstances, and to what extent the legal system is determined by economics.

The basic form of Marx’s historical materialism can be explained as follows: the requirements which are vital to sustain the most elementary forms of social life, that is, food, shelter and clothing are met by the exploitation of natural resources through the use of available technologies, i.e. the forces of production. During the course of production men enter into social relations and Marx reasoned that these relations of production are the basic constitutes of any society. The form of the relations of production will depend on the nature of available natural resources and the knowledge of technologies for exploiting them, the two together being described as the material base by Marx. Relations of production then crystallize into groups called classes whose relations are determined by the particular mode of production. As forces of production change so do the relations of production.

Base is the economic structure of society, the sum total of the production relations of the given society. The concept of the basis expresses the social function of the production relations as the economic basis of social phenomena that are outside the sphere of material production. While they are a form of the productive forces, the production relations at the same time determine the content of the superstructural forms. The superstructure is the sum-total of the “ideological” social relations that arise on the given economic basis, i.e. the sum-total of social relations that are consciously created by people. Marx made a clear distinction between “political and legal superstructure” of a society and the “definite forms of social consciousness” which correspond to the superstructural institutions. Although superstructural institutions are consciously created by people, this does not mean that their ideas and aims are part of these institutions, any more than tools consist of both tools and people’s ideas for making tools.

Join now!

There are two competing readings of this historical materialism, i.e. interactive and passive notions of economic reductionism. On the passive view, (which corresponds to stricter materialism), at least three approaches could be used to explore the relationship between law and society. The first would be the view that the relationship between the economic base and the superstructure is uni-directorial, the base being the active element and the superstructure passive and that law and the state emerge instrumentally from economic forces, and that all the social institutions of a community including its structures of political authority and its law arises ...

This is a preview of the whole essay