Marx never held a simple base-superstructure correspondence view.

Evidence

There seems little doubt that, had this point been expanded by Marx at the length of, say, Book One of the first volume of Capital , the one thing it would not have exhibited is a simple law of correspondence between the material base and the forms of the superstructure. — Hall, Stuart, Essential Essays, Volume 1, 512

Categorization

Category: Contrarian or Surprising Claims

• XREF: This recasts a claim about what ‘Marxism’ (vulgar version) is supposed to say — connects to Hall’s broader project of rescuing Marx from orthodox readings.

Related

• Marx rejected any simple correspondence between economic base and legal superstructure (similarity 0.85)
• Marx’s superstructures are determined yet fundamentally necessary, not empty illusions. (similarity 0.84)
• Later Marx saw superstructures as relatively autonomous rather than mechanically determined (similarity 0.82)
• The base-superstructure metaphor originated as three levels, not two (similarity 0.82)
• Base and superstructure relate through non-immediate, relative autonomy rather than direct correspondence (similarity 0.81)
• Marx derives superstructures from the phenomenal forms of exchange relations (similarity 0.81)
• The base-superstructure formula weakened Marxism by reducing ideas to mere reflections (similarity 0.79)
• Structuralism permits thinking structure apart from relations between people. (similarity 0.79)
• Ideology-focused readings of Marx long obscured his theory of the state (similarity 0.79)