Base and Superstructure?

[Petrol Bomb]

I've heard these terms used a lot before, and I think I have somewhat of an idea of it. But I don't think I really understand what they are. Could you guys please explain:




-What is the 'base'?
-What is the 'superstructure'?
-What is the relationship between the base and superstructure?
-What effects does the base have on society
-What effects does the superstructure have on society?


Thanks if you reply, all help is appreciated.

[blake 3:17]

This is one of the relatively few Marxist theory questions I get excited about. Thanks! & I do not have a perfect answer. In recent years, I've rejected the base/superstructure model, but could change my mind. Others on the board, feel free to disagree or correct me.

1) The base is generally understood as productive forces. This should include labor, capital, at least some parts of nature. Often understood as Economics.

2) Superstructure generally refers to political, social and cultural formations, which, again in social science may be referred to as Politics or Ideology.

3) who knows

4) Just talking to a friend about this. Marx is often mistranslated saying that the base determines the superstructure. What was pointed out, and rightly, was that that the base LIMITS the superstructure.

5) many many -- Just saw you were in Vancouver. So in issues I'm familiar with as a socialist -- there are BC-Alberta negotiations on oil going on, Crown Land and First Nations issues, very big one is decriminalizing pot and safe injection. Those are all dominated by capitalism and imperialism, but there's lots of free play in the middle.


not defintieoijeoinoive or definitive

[RedMaterialist]

[LEFT]
-What effects does the base have on society





Marxists have generally taken the view that it is not possible to determine a direct, specific link, or causal effect between the base and society. Engels said somewhere that neither he nor Marx ever claimed that you could look at a single characteristic of production and and show a corresponding social result in the superstructure.

I've often wondered if this is a wrong view. For instance, the dominant means of production today is the computer. What effect does the computer have on society or on individual people? I was watching a television panel the other day on the subject of how the use of a computer actually changes the structure of the brain. It mostly had to do with kids and ADHD, etc. The panel accepted as proven the fact that computer use changed brain structure, the only issue was to what extent this affected children.

Of course, reading probably does the same thing. The difference is that in the past reading was supposed to develop the "mind" (along with music, art etc.) The brain was something you were born with.

Marx said in The Poverty of Philosophythat an economy based on the water-wheel gives you feudalism and one based on the steam engine gives you industrial capitalism. One based on the computer would, I suppose, give you finance capital.

Use of a computer tends to separate people into non-social units, I would say. Everybody has their own password, has their own favorites, their own cubicle at work. So society becomes atomized and pathologically individualized. Also, the one monopolistic power, the state, can watch every key stroke you make.

This would, I think, tend to destroy society, at least traditional society. As Margaret Thatcher once unwittingly said, "Society no longer exists, only individuals and families." Now the family is disappearing. Leaving what? The totalitarian state described by Hannah Arendt and watched over by Big Brother and his computer.

Industrial capitalism socialized the serfs into the working class. I wonder what kind of class the computer will produce. I guess the consuming class, the internet surfing class.

[Petrol Bomb]

Industrial capitalism socialized the serfs into the working class. I wonder what kind of class the computer will produce. I guess the consuming class, the internet surfing class.

An internet surfing class? That seems absurd to me. Classes are determined by the division of labour. A computer does not produce anything. A person may use it run a business, but that just makes them bourgeois. They are there to access knowledge, communicate with others, entertain us, pursue creative endeavors (ex. writing and art). If computers were used for production (ie running machinery), there would be no class, as production would be automated.

[Lucretia]

One of the most misunderstood theoretical concepts in Marxian social thought. And frustratingly so. In broad terms base/superstructure refers to a relationship of ontological presupposition. Or to put it in plainer English, "What has to exist in order for X to exist? Before X can exist?" Water, for instance, ontologically presupposes hydrogen molecules. But two phenomena that ontologically presuppose each other need not be empirically distinct phenomena. So the "superstructure" of water, as an example, actually contains the "base" of hydrogen molecules. What this means is that base/superstructure does not map onto the binary of material/ideal (e.g., scientific knowledge is very much a "basic" force of production), nor does it refer to a mechanisms for grouping distinct institutions. Per the example above, is water a part of the "superstructure"? Or part of the "base"? Or both? What about the family? Doesn't it contain the very basic function of (re)producing labor power? You can see that once the concept of base/superstructure is really grasped, these categorization questions don't make much sense. The state, in one sense, is superstructural -- in that it results from and in turns coercively shores up power that is derived from the "base" (control of productive resources) -- but in another sense, especially as the state takes on more of a role in capital accumulation with the rise of monopoly capitalism, very much performs "basic" functions.

The oft-quoted remark from the 1859 Preface quoted above happens to be making the point that I allude to above about the origins of political power lying in control over productive resources.

[Slavoj Zizek's Balls]

One of the most misunderstood theoretical concepts in Marxian social thought. And frustratingly so. In broad terms base/superstructure refers to a relationship of ontological presupposition. Or to put it in plainer English, "What has to exist in order for X to exist? Before X can exist?" Water, for instance, ontologically presupposes hydrogen molecules. But two phenomena that ontologically presuppose each other need not be empirically distinct phenomena. So the "superstructure" of water, as an example, actually contains the "base" of hydrogen molecules. What this means is that base/superstructure does not map onto the binary of material/ideal (e.g., scientific knowledge is very much a "basic" force of production), nor does it refer to a mechanisms for grouping distinct institutions. Per the example above, is water a part of the "superstructure"? Or part of the "base"? Or both? What about the family? Doesn't it contain the very basic function of (re)producing labor power? You can see that once the concept of base/superstructure is really grasped, these categorization questions don't make much sense. The state, in one sense, is superstructural -- in that it results from and in turns coercively shores up power that is derived from the "base" (control of productive resources) -- but in another sense, especially as the state takes on more of a role in capital accumulation with the rise of monopoly capitalism, very much performs "basic" functions.

The oft-quoted remark from the 1859 Preface quoted above happens to be making the point that I allude to above about the origins of political power lying in control over productive resources.

^ No disrespect to the writer but that's an unnecessarily obfuscated explanation (for the learning forum).

How about this way of looking at it?

A ship has a hull and a superstructure on top of that hull. Water is the equivalent of the ship in it's entirety, combing two elements to produce a more complex chemical compound.

Society has two important 'elements' to it. Civil society (productive forces and social relations) as the economic base and political society (the political system and institutions combined which are linked to it) as the political superstructure.

The economic base isn't just something as simple as the working class though, it is a combination of all things directly related to it such from a worker's mental state to how the means of production are organised.

The two are sometimes considered to be distinct from each other but also interrelated depending on your viewpoint. I prefer to say that the two are intertwined and cannot be separated, only modified or overhauled/revolutionised.

[Lucretia]

^ No disrespect to the writer but that's an unnecessarily obfuscated explanation (for the learning forum).

How about this way of looking at it?

A ship has a hull and a superstructure on top of that hull. Water is the equivalent of the ship in it's entirety, combing two elements to produce a more complex chemical compound.

Society has two important 'elements' to it. Civil society (productive forces and social relations) as the economic base and political society (the political system and institutions combined which are linked to it) as the political superstructure.

The economic base isn't just something as simple as the working class though, it is a combination of all things directly related to it such from a worker's mental state to how the means of production are organised.

The two are sometimes considered to be distinct from each other but also interrelated depending on your viewpoint. I prefer to say that the two are intertwined and cannot be separated, only modified or overhauled/revolutionised.

No offense to you, either, but I think this post just complicates what I said above. Base and superstructure are not concrete distinctions, anymore than you can concretely distinguish hydrogen from a water droplet. It is not intended to refer to distinct objects or institutions. It is an analytical distinction, made through retroductive abstraction, between different aspects and functions belonging to the same object or institution. And the abstraction is intended to capture the relationship of "emergence" or ontological presupposition.

Marx's point in the 1859 preface, where he most famously used this, was a point about the origins of political power. States do not create political power, as if they simply conjured it out of the blue. Political power is created through antagonistic economic relationships and then harnessed by states. States presuppose these antagonistic economic relationships. But that doesn't mean that states, in the course of their evolution, cannot come to assimilate these very relationships -- as when a state enterprise operates for the purpose of accumulating value.

This is a very important point to make in light of some attempts to try to discredit "base and superstructure" by pointing out that processes of economic exploitation used to be carried out directly by the state itself (e.g., a feudal lord or a tributary bureaucracy directly using coercion to extract a surplus from peasantry). In such a case, it makes no sense to say that the state is only superstructural, and reflects an economic base that exists somewhere else concretely outside of the state.

[RedMaterialist]

An internet surfing class? That seems absurd to me. Classes are determined by the division of labour. A computer does not produce anything. A person may use it run a business, but that just makes them bourgeois. They are there to access knowledge, communicate with others, entertain us, pursue creative endeavors (ex. writing and art). If computers were used for production (ie running machinery), there would be no class, as production would be automated.

The internet surfing class comment was meant as kind of snarky. It is true that a computer doesn't produce anything, but neither does any machine. Most large scale production today is automated; computer production is computer controlled.

I would say that a computer is a machine ultimately controlled by a human used to produce massive amounts of commodities. If the means of production constitutes the base of the superstructure, what, then, kind of superstructure is developed by a computer? That was my point.

Also, if people ran businesses with their own computers, and were the sole employees, then technically they would not be capitalists. They would own their own means of production and would own the result, or product, of their own work. They would be like small farmers who owned their own plows, horses, land, etc. That's why you never see a worker going into a factory with a computer (other than a cell phone, which the worker is absolutely forbidden to use while at work.)

[Vercingetorix]

We're dealing with some views on antiquated terms here.

Putting things very simply, every society can be understood by examining its:

Structure: What people do. IE, Farming, Service Industries, Retail Sales, Electrogeneration.
Infrastructure: How society is organized and functions. IE Democratic Constitutional Republic, campain donations to politicians from corporations, outright bribery.
Superstructure: What people believe. Individual Liberty, God, Angels, the rule of law.

Understanding these and how they interrelate is an effective way of examining society, and allows for effective Marxist criticism.

They can also be used to self-examine subcultures and political groups.

Identifying conflicts on these three separate levels helps us target our actions appropriately.

Structural action: labor strikes, walkouts.
Infrastructural action: protests, information warfare during elections, engaging in electoral politics, focusing lawsuits, vocally confronting individuals of influence about their policies.
Superstructural action: propaganda; literature, music, youtube videos designed to change minds to our way of thinking

As a movement, we must act on all three fronts.

[Tim Cornelis]

I've heard these terms used a lot before, and I think I have somewhat of an idea of it. But I don't think I really understand what they are. Could you guys please explain:


What is the 'base'?

The base of society is the material conditions -- simplistically put, how much we can produce, the productive forces -- and the economic structure -- such as the relations of production -- of society. The material conditions have a direct causal affect on the economic structure and determine its content.

The material conditions determine the economic structure. For instance, with the expansion of the productive forces from the 16th century onward (proto-industrialisation and ultimately the Industrial revolution) labour could no longer access, directly, the means of subsistence, production, and life. The productive forces were too advanced (and thus expensive) to be accessible to the general population. From this grew the mercantile and trading class that would become the bourgeoisie whom were privileged enough to own these means of production, and the working class that merely owned its labour-power. Additionally, mercantile and commercial production only became viable (and necessary) when feudal lands produced enough surplus to exchange and trade.


The rise of wage labour in particular is a principal element in the structural transformation of economy and society. The change from coerced labour and independent labour – dominant in most parts of Europe until the modern period – to wage labour forms perhaps the most fundamental element of the transition from medieval, feudal society into modern, capitalist society. This created a mass of people, often largely or fully proletarianized, who were legally free but dependent on the sale of their labour in the market, and thus subject to competition in the labour market, with the accompanying severe effects on their social and economic behaviour. Also, a large reservoir of wage labourers now came into being, available to agricultural and industrial entrepreneurs striving to expand their enterprises. These labourers, as well as other groups, no longer had direct access to the means of subsistence, requiring them to use the market for goods in order to acquire the necessities of life. Accumulation of the means of production, and the concomitant proletarianization, was also facilitated by the growing market exchange of land and capital and the ensuing competition within the market.

Medieval Origins of Capitalism in the Netherlands, p. 48

Thus we see that the material conditions directly determine the relations of production. The superstructure is thereupon construed.


What is the 'superstructure'?

What is the relationship between the base and superstructure?

The superstructure is the judicial and political (as well as cultural) structure erected from and atop the base. It is an expression thereof. The state would be the superstructure (among other things, but it is the primary feature). With the emergence of commercial production and wage-labour, this new mode of production (the capitalist) came into conflict with the existing superstructure. The bourgeoisie, whom now possessed great economic power as the scope of commercial production expanded, had no interest in maintaining aristocratic political privileges -- the aristocracy was obsolete. Moreover, where the feudal peasants were dependent upon their feudal lords for access to economic reproduction, the bourgeoisie was financially independent and could thus aspire their own interests relatively independently. Additionally, the advances in the productive forces stimulated urbanisation and therewith pluriformity. Within the feudal domains homogenity reigned: people engaged in the same productive activities and had the same social identity (e.g. Christian, protestant). Thus, proto-industrialisation and the Industrial Revolution resulted in pluriform social conditions and different, often conflicting interests (both sectional and class interests).
These conflicting interests could now be expressed within the political system through parliamentary representation, and thus the viability of liberal democracy was born. The bourgeoisie has an economic interest in social peace as trading becomes difficult under conditions of social unrest or war, thus liberal democracy was a proper means to regulate conflicting interests in society.

Liberal democracy did not become a necessity, it only became viable through advances in the productive forces. And unsurprisingly we see that the Right to Property is enshrined constitutionally in virtually every country (I presume all).

Another example would be the transition from hunter-gatherer to slave societies. The neolithic revolution allowed for 'civilisation' and the state was needed to protect the minority of rulers (slave owners) against the majority of slaves.


[
What effects does the base have on society
What effects does the superstructure have on society?


The economic structure also determines social positions. For example, post-Neolithic revolution patriarchy emerged. Women became dependent on men because the latter were more physically capable of slave labour. Likewise we see a diminishing dependence of women on men with the emergence of proto-industrialisation. Max Weber, while opposed to historical materialism, also explained how capitalism diminished the cultural influence of magic.
The superstructure is the oppressive expression of class relations and thence the effect is oppression, smashing strikes and workers' resistance. Legally, expropriations are not allowed so the state acts as protecter of bourgeois privilege.


No offense to you, either, but I think this post just complicates what I said above. Base and superstructure are not concrete distinctions, anymore than you can concretely distinguish hydrogen from a water droplet.

Of course you can. A more proper analogy would be the water being the base and the glass wherein it is contained would be the superstructure. You can clearly distinguish them. The political system of liberal democracy (superstructure) is clearly different from wage-labour (Relations of production, economic structure) and automation and mechanisation (material conditions). I don't see why it's not possible to distinguish these.

[Lucretia]

Of course you can. A more proper analogy would be the water being the base and the glass wherein it is contained would be the superstructure. You can clearly distinguish them. The political system of liberal democracy (superstructure) is clearly different from wage-labour (Relations of production, economic structure) and automation and mechanisation (material conditions). I don't see why it's not possible to distinguish these.

You can't distinguish them except in the abstract because liberal-democratic states employ wage laborers (as well as some civil service bureaucrats, but these tend not to be in enterprises geared toward accumulation). That's why you can't make this distinction, and why your glass vs. water analogy is overly simplistic. Things get even more complicated when you turn to state-capitalist regimes.

As I said, if these distinctions are so easy, tell me: is a feudal state part of the base or the superstructure? Is the family under capitalism part of the base or part of the superstructure? What about scientific knowledge? Is that "basic" or "superstructural"?

[The Garbage Disposal Unit]

You can't distinguish them except in the abstract because liberal-democratic states employ wage laborers (as well as some civil service bureaucrats, but these tend not to be in enterprises geared toward accumulation). That's why you can't make this distinction, and why your glass vs. water analogy is overly simplistic. Things get even more complicated when you turn to state-capitalist regimes.

As I said, if these distinctions are so easy, tell me: is a feudal state part of the base or the superstructure? Is the family under capitalism part of the base or part of the superstructure? What about scientific knowledge? Is that "basic" or "superstructural"?

Thanks for this!

I think that's where shit tends to get confusing and the apparent binary begins to break down. After all, we can say that the base is the "material" components (ie capital), but the development of that material component is subject to the development of the "superstructure" (where "capital" without changing its material character can cease to be capital-as-such with a change in social forms / political development).
So, pertinently, where does class fit in to all of this? I think this presents an interesting situation in that it complicates thinking of "class" as a material reality (which it certainly is) without thinking about its subjective reality and its specific manifestations - the development of a "class for itself" that recognizes itself as a class and acts accordingly as opposed to a relationship to production (which it certainly is, but which also serves to suppose a false unity between a worker chained to their sewing machine, and a worker playing the new Civ5 Expansion to check for bugs).