Controversy about the contribution of Gerald Cohen for Marxist theory of history

Abstract

I write to propose a theoretical discussion. I would like to exchange ideas about the thesis of the cumulative development of productive forces throughout the history of humanity and the thesis according to which this development would be the necessary, although not sufficient, cause of historical change. In the review you published in Crítica Marxista n.39 about Cohen's book (Karl Marx's theory of history: a defense), you criticized the explanation he offers for these two theses: the human being would be, as he maintains, endowed with such rationality that leads him to prefer instruments and methods that allow him to save physical and mental energy in the work process and/or reduce the time he must spend on work activity. This would be why the productive forces − despite going through periods of ups and downs, acceleration and deceleration − would present, in a long curve, an upward trajectory; This would also be why men would tend to disengage from social relationships that would hinder such a trajectory. Cohen himself is aware that this is a supramodal thesis, that is, it would apply to different modes of production, from the primitive community to capitalism. If I understand correctly, this is what you criticize in it: the fact that Cohen resorts to the idea of ​​a human nature which, in this case, would be characterized by the attribute of rationality (in relation to ends) in the work process.