Abstract

In this article, I consider what E. P. Thompson and Ellen Meiksins Wood have to say about the concept of a social formation and its significance for Marxism. I consider these thinkers together for two reasons. In the first place, the views of Meiksins Wood owe a great deal to her engagement with Thompson’s writings. In the second place, despite Meiksins Wood claim that she is simply following a lead provided by E. P. Thompson, there is a significant (though unacknowledged) difference between her views and his. Meiksins Wood departs from Thompson when she argues that the concept of a social formation ought to be excluded from the lexicon of Marxism. When discussing the concept of a social formation, both Thompson and Meiksins Wood attach importance to the ‘general illumination’ passage in the general introduction to Marx’s Grundrisse. However, they read this passage in very different ways. According to Thompson, this focal passage supports the view that the concept of a social formation is of fundamental importance for Marxist historians. This reading constitutes a challenge to Meiksins Wood’s view that the concept of a social formation is an Althusserian accretion which has a little significance for our understanding of the views of Marx and Marxism.

Keywords

Base and superstructure, Ellen Meiksins Wood, E. P. Thompson, historical materialism, Karl Marx, Marxism, social formation

From: Capital & Class 2022 46 (2)

Editor: Wang Yi