Marx - Base & Superstructure
-
Upload
david-chia-jun-weng -
Category
Documents
-
view
55 -
download
5
Transcript of Marx - Base & Superstructure
David Chia Jun Weng
Prof. Jessica Ratcliff
Paper 1 - Karl Marx
September 11 2014
Karl Marx: The Intercourse of Base & Superstructure
As observed in history, every novel material invention seems to foreshadow a cultural
lag. The internet and similar technological counterparts have brought about a skepticism, and
delayed social acceptance. In his early days, Marx, on top of refuting idealistic Hegelian
ideologies, attempted to grapple with the reasons for such a phenomenon. According to
Marx, in his famous line, it is not “the consciousness of men that determines their being, but
their social being that [does]. ” Grounding the “social being” in “means of production” of an 1
“intercourse between men ”, Marx claims that the “real foundation” lies in the “economic 2
strutter of society” built upon by “means [and] relations of material production. ” In many 3
ways, the invention of the internet, a means of material production, has brought about a idea
and culture of the global village and not vice versa.
This cultural lag resulting from a material invention is what Marx would call the Base
determining and shaping the Superstructure. In subverting Hegelian philosophy of humans
being derived from a collective consciousness i.e. Mind (with capital ‘M’), Marx coins two
terms: Base and Superstructures. He places them onto a hierarchy with the Base (as the name
suggests) being at the bottom while the Superstructure on top. The Base is where the forces of
production and relations of production lie. Collectively, they form the material, and economic
grounding of our society. On the other hand, the Superstructure include elements such as
cultural activities, philosophical thought, culture, religion. In short, they represent the legal
and political Superstructure of society. Shaped almost like a pyramid, Marx’s distinction of
Page � of �1 6
Page 41
ibid2
ibid3
Base and Superstructure is contextualized in a hierarchy with the Base determining, shaping
and maintaining the Superstructure. A change in 1) the Forces of production, results in the
change of 2) the Relations of production, followed by 3) the Legal and Political
Superstructure, and eventually creating 4) a Form of Social Consciousness.
There are two main points that can be extracted from Marx’s theory of Base and
Superstructure: 1) the economic structure of society (comprising of material productive force
and relations of production) is the “real” foundation in which all other aspects rest upon, and
2) the over-deterministic individual i.e. the Self placed under definite social relations. Having
personally deconstructed Marx’s theory of Base and Superstructure, I hope to analyze both
the aforementioned extractions in hopes of unraveling their significance within a broader
Marx trajectory, and resolving the apparent contradictions within them.
Using the theory of Base & Superstructure Marx grounds the “Heaven” i.e.
consciousness into “Earth” i.e. productive forces. The “higher relations of production” never
appear before the “material conditions. ” In other words, Things come forth from Thoughts, 4
and “Earth” from “Heaven. ” To Marx, the base determines, shapes and maintains the 5
superstructure, yet the reverse is not necessarily true.
A materialist, Marx conceives history in its production and reproduction of real life -
“intercourse” as he puts it. For Marx, this materialistic production undercurrents the real
basis of society. One may read this, in fact, to be an ontological argument: reality lies in
matter i.e. the Base and not in the Mind i.e. superstructure. Famously, Plato viewed the
reverse to be true. As elucidated in his Allegory of the Cave, Plato views the world of ideas i.e.
Page � of �2 6
{Superstructure} !!{ B a s e }
determines, shapes &
maintains
1. Form of social consciousness 2. Legal & political superstructure 3. Relations of production 4. Forces of production in
crea
sing
hier
arch
y
}}
Page 54
Page 1545
the intelligible as being more real than the world of shadows i.e. the visible. This delves us
into the ontological question of which being more real: Thoughts or Things, the
Superstructure or the Base? As clearly stated and argued, Marx consistently agrees that the
Base precedes the Superstructure, in a sense - things are more real than thoughts. His
criticism of the Hegelian philosophy (and by extension - Plato’s) lies in the idealistic,
conscious Mind where all beings are descended from.
This criticism, therefore, leads to - what I think would be - a Hegelian-style counter-
example: what sparks a change in the means of production? In other words, wouldn’t it be a
thought or a Mind-like enlightenment that propagates early humans to manipulate nature by
rubbing two sticks together to start fire or planting the first tree resulting early settlements?
It seems like there is a contradiction within Marx’s Base. As seen in the diagram above, a
change in the forces of production, leads to a change in the relations of production eventually
to a change in the superstructure, and finally human consciousness. Uni-directional, from
base to superstructure, Marx’s theory may appear problematic in that it does not factor in the
material changes caused by consciousness. Presented with a kind of chicken-and-egg
phenomenon, what would Marx say about the merging of his ideas with that of Hegel; could
we agree that the chart is indeed cyclic - from Earth comes Heaven and vice versa?
Marx, as I interpret, would firstly disagree with himself making an ontological
argument. His point is not to be arguing on whether thoughts or things are more real.
Simplistically, he defines reality to be materialist - in hopes for action instead of empty
philosophical humdrum. In a letter from Engels to Bloch , Engels - and by extension, Marx - 6
explicitly states that the economic element is not the “only determining one” but merely just
a “basis.” Following this train of thought, Marx and Engels would agree that the “various
elements” of the superstructure also exercise their influence upon the course of historical
Page � of �3 6 https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1890/letters/90_09_21.htm6
struggles and in many cases “preponderate in determining their form .” Engel’s letter imply 7
an “interaction of all these elements”, of an inner interconnection that appear so “impossible
to proof” that it is regarded as “non-existent” and “negligible. ” As such, Marx and Engels 8
would agree with the influences that the superstructure have on the base; however, due to its
non-empirical, and un-real (note Marx defines reality as material and empirical) interaction,
Marx intentionally chose to avoid a cyclic chart and resorted to unidirectional instead. Surely,
this parallels Marx’s and Engel’s intention of criticizing the idealistic, un-grounded, weak
dialogues of young Hegelians; Marx, therefore, aptly advocates a unidirectional, hierarchal
structure of the base and superstructure, while acknowledging the interactions that too arise
from the superstructure, yet for its abstract connections, is left out of his theory. In so saying,
his goal, hence, is not to refute Plato or Hegel, but rather to embody the antithesis of their
philosophy.
The antithesis is embodied in the individual being derived from the social being. This
segues us over from the ontological contraction into the question of over-determinism and
free-will. The Self - according to Marx - is born into a set of “definite relations ” determined 9
by a “Social being.” Within this dialectic, the the individual enters into “definite relations”
that are “indispensable” and “independent of their will. ” There appears to be in these lines 10
an over-deterministic viewpoint of the world. The contradiction, therefore, lies in the
relationship between the Self and the Social, and his intention of wanting to evoke change.
“Philosophers have interpreted the world, in various ways. The point, however, is to change
it. ” His view of over-deterministic Self seem to lack an agency of evoking such a change. If 11
the social being determines the individual, would the self merely recede to a set of social
Page � of �4 6
https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1890/letters/90_09_21.htm7
ibid8
Page 49
ibid10
Page 6 - 811
definite relations, stuck, lacking agency, free-will, and therefore is rendered unable to change?
Through a pedestaling of the social being, Marx seem to have (almost in a Buddhistic
manner) over-socialized a self, depriving the individual from agency to change.
At first understanding, the over-socialized Self appears self-defeating to Marx’s
advocacy of “change.” If a farmer, for example, were born in a farm, bound to definite
relations of the social, it appears that little can be done for him to “change the world” - as
Marx grandly puts. The over-socialized Self is put into a prison of his own “definite” set of
remains, resulting in little social change.
Similar to the ontological contradiction, Marx probably is not addressing questions of
free-will or determinism. As I interpret, Marx neither takes a stand on free-will nor
determinism, but rather merges them into a dialectic. It is perhaps also important to note that
Marx defines change as existing in the material Base, and not in the superstructure
ideological level. Since history - according to Marx - arises from “conflicts between many
individual wills” made host of their “particular conditions of life,” the over-socialized Self
contradiction can be resolved in the clashes of individual conflict . This constant flux, or 12
struggle (termed Marx’s dialectic) merges these individual conflicts into an “aggregate mean”,
“a common resultant. ” In so saying, free will exists within the individual conflicts. However, 13
the wills of individuals, derived from the deterministic “physical constitutions and external
economic circumstances ”, do not achieve what they want but merge into a dialectic i.e. 14
common fate. By over-socializing the Self, Marx intends to make aware the many social
relations and ties that come into play in determining our Self, as a way to make tangible these
seemingly abstract connections in mere productive and material forces. The change is found
in the awareness of the tangible connections.
Page � of �5 6
https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1890/letters/90_09_21.htm12
Page 413
https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1890/letters/90_09_21.htm14
Consistently throughout his writing, Marx grounds his theory in tangible, empirical,
real material of production, taking a stand antithetical to many young Hegelians who
advocate philosophical ideologies. It is no surprise that Marxist ideas has in many ways been
brought down from Heaven to Earth resulting in cultural revolutions within the Eastern. In
many ways like Maslow’s hierarchy of needs, the Marxist theory on Base and Superstructure
was ahead of its time. To claim that the basis for all of superstructural consciousness lies in
economics, Marx understandably has created avenues for change in spite an deterministic
social being. Manifested likewise in today’s world, we see tangible evidence of new material
discoveries such as cloning, cryogenics, genetic mutation, the internet resulting in a delayed
acceptance - in that the superstructure lags to a change in the material basis of life. Marx not
only brought Heaven down to Earth; he has made the Mind a byproduct of Matter; a self-
actualization enslaved by body. One may doubt the relevance of Marxist ideas in today’s world
now that Communism has seem to have failed, but I beg to differ; behind the Gaza strip,
Sino-American relations, and global affairs, there exists a real economic foundation
encapsulated in relations and forces of material production. After all, our existence in its
stripped down nature too - according to Marx - is essentially a product of an exchange, an
intercourse of liquids (a material base) in which all other elements are derived from.
!!
Works Cited
Tucker, R., Marx, K. and Engels, F. (1978). The Marx-Engels reader. 1st ed. New York: Norton.
!Marxists.org, (2014). Letters: Marx-Engels Correspondence 1890. [online]
Available at: https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1890/letters/90_09_21.htm
[Accessed 11 Sep. 2014].
Page � of �6 6