Talk:Base and superstructure

message: I started this page ignorant of the German wiki entry. Having become aware of the latter after the interwiki link appeared am proceeding to just translate the other article and have integrated with my original stub text. Lycurgus 01:26, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Should say that of course I haven't squatted this article, such a thing being in principle impossible here. Also I'm not trying to say that the German article is perfekt and couldn't be improved upon. Lycurgus 18:32, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks Lycurgus for starting and expanding this entry with the help of the German Wikipedia. I've used a different version of the Marx quote from a published English translation (see here) rather than using your translation of the original German (which the German wiki apparently retrieved from the multivolume Marx Engels Werke (MWE)). I think this makes more sense and allows readers to look at the original text online which I linked to. Also the quote in question comes from the preface to A Contribution to the Critique of Political Economy, not from "Critique of Political Economy" which is the subtitle of Das Kapital. There's much more that could be said about this topic (for example an expansion of Williams' thoughts on the matter, inclusions of comments from Engels, and a discussion of the "vulgarization" of the base/superstructure model by Stalinist theory), but this is a pretty decent beginning.--Bigtimepeace | talk |  contribs 18:51, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: NP, at this point it's caught up to the German wiki entry which has I think has taken some original divergence, see a section there titled 'Monocausality' which haven't looked at yet. FTR, most of work on this one not by me and I've stopped ip editing. Also see there's a Chinese entry now. I think the CCP does some monitoring of the content here and makes sure the Chinese wiki at least has something on critical topics. Lycurgus (talk) 15:44, 14 August 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  My role shifts from original composition to translation 

message: Which says the base is "economic" and the superstructure "political". This is wrong but I'll let others fix it. The base is the relation between the ruling group and everyone else and is the mode of production (i.e. the profit principle upon which the entirety of capitalist society is based) which is both economic and political. The superstructure is everything else, it's not just economic or political, but cultural and indeed everything upon which the basis of society is organized. The attempt to segregate into "economic" and "political" categories is anti-dialectic and especially egregious in a topic which often is called "political economy" precisely to negate said separation. Lycurgus (talk) 16:34, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Comment on Feto34's edit 

message: Here are two versions of the lead section of this article from March 19, 2009. I am primarily responsible for the first one. The second is User:Mhazard9 's revision of it. I think they each have their good and bad points.
Version 1
In Marxist theory, human society is sometimes regarded as consisting of two parts: Base and Superstructure. The base consists of the relations of production, which are the relations human beings enter into with each other in order to produce the necessities and amenities of life. Such relations include those between employee and employer, the technical division of labour in a factory, and property relations. Marx held that these relations are fundamental in determining what other kinds of relationships can or do exist in society, and also the kinds of ideas that are prevalent in society. These other relationships, and society's ideas, Marx called the superstructure. The base detrmines or conditions the superstructure. Marx did not conceive of this as a matter of strict causality, and indeed he held that the superstructure can also sometimes influence the base; however the influence of the base is predominant.
Version 2
In Marxist theory, human society economically consists of two parts: the Base and the Superstructure; the base comprehends the relations of production —  employer-employee work conditions, the technical division of labour, and property relations — that people enter to produce the necessities and amenities of life. These relations fundamentally determine society’s other relationships and ideas, constituting the superstructure; thus, the base determines (conditions) the superstructure, yet, their relation is not strictly causal, because the superstructure often influences the base; however the influence of the base predominates.
Mhazard's edit summary was "Clean up; composition for lucid, objective tone, reduced prolixity." Mhazard's version is brisker than mine, and reduced prolixity has been achieved. However, in my version, I was being quite careful as to meaning and I fear that some of this has gone out the window. Perhaps we can arrive at a synthesis that incorporates the best points of the two versions. Here are my concerns with Mhazard's version, point by point:
I said that in Marxist theory human society is sometimes regarded as consisting of base and superstructure, because some Marxists are not particularly keen on this formulation by Marx, regarding it as overly rigid. For example, Michael Evans in Karl Marx (London, 1975, p 62) says that the Preface to the Critique of CPE "includes an unfortunate metaphor from the language of constructional engineering, namely the distinction between base (Basis) and superstructure (Überbau)." I think it is best to say that this is one way that Marxists conceive of society, not the only way.
The second point regarding this sentence is that the word economically does not seem like a good addition to me. What does it mean to say that something economically consists of something?  Also, the base is economic, but the superstructure is not, unless you take "economic" in an extremely broad sense.
Next. Employee employer, technical labour-division, and property relations is not an exhaustive list of the relations of production. They are just important examples, chosen by me to illustrate the term. Remember that people will be reading this article who know nothing whatever about Marxism or relations of production. If they are to understand the term without using a link we must briefly explain it. This is also why I said "in a factory". It helps concretise "technical division of labour" for somebody who has never heard that term.
My next three sentences, explaining that the base determines the superstructure, are prolix, probably a bit clunky, but I think easier to understand than, "These relations fundamentally determine society's other relationships and ideas, constituting the superstructure . . . ."
"Determines" and "conditions" are tricky dialectical terms, subject to considerable debate, and do not necessarily mean the same thing. That's why I said "or". Giving "conditions" in brackets as an appositive for "determines" may make somebody think the terms are entirely interchangeable. (The debate in Marxism that I refer to is over how strictly Marx thought that base determines superstructure. "Determines" generally denotes more strictness than "conditions".)
I also said "Marx thinks" a few more times than Mhazard did because what we are doing here is reporting on a man's ideas, not some received truth.
I hope I'm not coming across as a complete grouch. Mhazard does some quite good editing and, style-wise, his lead section has some advantages over mine. Perhaps we can arrive at a version that is better than either of the present ones. --Ong saluri (talk) 03:25, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Changes in lead section

message: This concept is accredited to Marx.  While it is a Marxist concept, it was Gramsci's idea put forth in explaining hegemony, showing how hegemony is reproduced on two levels and should be studied in this manner.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.78.202.101 (talk) 22:04, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually civil society is a much wider concept than Marxist/Socialist currents, it's not in fact specifically Marxist at all. Lycurgus (talk) 15:47, 14 August 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Civil Society 

message: I read the opening paragraph and was none the wiser after having done so than I had been before. It appears to be written in such a way as to include as many obscure words as possible without the bother of also enlightening the reader. By all means put the obscure stuff in the body of the article but surely, it is possible to include an opening paragraph written in plain English which would be accessible to the average reader.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.187.233.165 (talk) 18:23, 3 April 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: My original text which assumed a reader broadly literate in Philosophy has been redacted, and I approve the action. Lycurgus (talk) 17:55, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Noting - The current state is intellectually inferior but politically superior to the earlier drafts, SFAICT. 72.228.177.92 (talk) 19:54, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  What does it all mean? 

message: Marx is often depicted, by both proponents and opponents, as a technological/economical determinist. I find this interpreation of Marx inconsistent with Marx's dialectical method. Marx generally ignores using causal language (I challenge the writer of this wikipedia article to find much of it in Capital - words like "determines" or "causes"). What Marx is saying is that "technologies and organizational forms internalize a certain relation to nature as well as to mental conceptions and social relations, daily life and labour processes" (Harvey, 2010, p. 193, Companion to Marx). Within this process of internalization, the study of technologies and organizational forms REVEAL or DISCLOSE a great deal about other elements. Conversely, all these other elements internalize something of what technology is about. All this elements constitute a totality, and his point is that we have to understand the mutual interactions between them at work. 
Technologies and organizational forms get produced out of mental conceptions, they also arise out of our social relations and in response to practical needs of daily life or of labour processes. These are to be viewed DIALECTICALLY, not causally. Marx considered himself a scientist, and he was committed to materialism. But his materialism is different from that of the natural scientists. It is HISTORICAL. "The weaknesses of the abstract materialism of natural science, a materialism which excludes the historical process," says Marx, "are immediately evident from the abstract and ideological (this word was used pejoratively by Marx) conceptions expressed by its spokesman whenever they venture beyond the bounds of their own speciality" (p. 494, Capital, trans. Fowkes) 
Marx's argument/methodology is summarized by Harvey as the following: "there is an economic base on which there arise frameworks of thought as well as a political and legal superstructure that COLLECTIVELY define how we become conscious of problems and fight them out" (p. 199). To illustrate this point more clearly, think of the chapter on the working day (ch.10) and see if the economically deterministic argument could be applied to unfold the struggle between workers and capitalists. No, it can't be, because "class alliances, conjunctural possibilities, discursive shifts in sentiments" and the outcome is never certain. It is a point of contestation "between two equal rights" within capitalism that can never arrive at some ultimate or absolute solution (i.e., Marx did not say that the outcome of the working day struggle was determined by movements in the economic base).
Furthermore, many have interpreted Marx's paragraph in the "A Contribution to the Critique of Political Economy," where he states: '...the mode of production of material life conditions the general process of social, political, and intellectual life' as economically deterministic. What they fail to recognize is that Marx leaves out the following sentence from the Critique which explains that 'it is in the superstructure that we become conscious of political issues and fight them out' (Harvey, p. 198).
Also, let's not forget that the emphasis on the economic base, was a reaction and counter argument to the Hegelians who exaggerated the important role played by ideas and the mind on the material world. Engels duely noted this in oen of his publishings, where he took credit for being wrongly economically deterministic and that in no way did this (or his ideas) reflect on Marx's.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.58.131.98 (talk) 03:11, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: It's unclear what, if any, specific changes you propose for the article. The content above appears to be essentially a redundant puffing of what's already on the obverse but certainly additional relevant and worthwhile sources are always welcome. Lycurgus (talk) 21:52, 18 May 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Not saying I endorse the current state. I created the article but I don't own it nor am I going to edit war to maintain it. Usually as in the case of Absolute idealism, articles more or less monotonically advance to better states. However, it's not inevitable. 72.228.177.92 (talk) 07:38, 7 September 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Re-wording urgently needed 

message: At least according to Stalin: A Man of Contradiction: https://docs.google.com/file/d/0B7trXEFcZimVS0tiSEF2cmRHRjg/edit (bottom of page 134 if going by the pdf page numbers, 112 if going by the book page numbers).  — Preceding unsigned comment added by CommieFeminist (talk • contribs) 06:50, 2 October 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  "base" and "superstructure" comes from Stalin, not Marx 

message: I am merely putting the question out there, but is this truly a theory? A theory, according to the definition that we use at my university, is a proven scientific explanation of an aspect of the universe. Theory is in this case quite obviously used in the other sense of the word, theory as opposed to practice. Therefore, might it not be more exact to call it something else, something that does not falsely imply scientific credibility?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.226.54.134 (talk) 18:29, 12 November 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: I think you're mixing up a theory and a fact? 69.122.244.46 (talk) 09:29, 13 January 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Theory 

message: Saying that that implies unidirectional determination. To the extent that Marxism is an inverted or evolved Hegelianism, that's just false and it's not in the given source or consistent with what I think you'll find from reliable sources. Rather, the Orthodox understanding would be that the two are in a constant process of sublation but of course with the base being basic, determinative, but also with a back flow of effect from the situation of the superstructure. Lycurgus (talk) 08:50, 13 June 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Also this is relevant to the deletion edit of text supplied by someone else who was trying to say the above on the basis that it was unsourced (which it was) and a conjecture (which it was not). Whoever placed that text (it didn't sound like me) you can easily source per above. So the defects were actually that it was weasel worded and unsourced. Lycurgus (talk) 17:51, 18 June 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Problem with sentence in current lede about Orthodox Marxism 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  on Base and superstructure. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120705182135/http://www.aber.ac.uk:80/media/Documents/marxism/marxism07.html to http://www.aber.ac.uk/media/Documents/marxism/marxism07.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070406071522/http://www.aber.ac.uk:80/media/Documents/marxism/marxism02.html to http://www.aber.ac.uk/media/Documents/marxism/marxism02.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 23:11, 27 October 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: >> In some non-Western languages, this concept [base and superstructure] is rendered as "Infrastructure and Superstructure" which could lead to a malapropism. <<
# Which non-Western languages? Examples? Hindi, Korean...? (N.B. This "non-Western" has been changed at some stage from an earlier, even less specific, "non-Germanic").
# What is the potential malapropism (the use of an incorrect word in place of a word with a similar sound, resulting in a nonsensical, sometimes humorous utterance)? It seems to me that the use of the word "malapropism" might itself be a malapropism here.
# Is it, in any case, at all relevant to this article what terms other languages use for the concept?
Can anyone explain what is going on here, or at least suggest a reason why the whole sentence should not be deleted? -- Picapica (talk) 17:15, 24 March 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  What malapropism?