Rev Left Radio - Approaching Marxism: Base and Superstructure (Prolekult)

Episode Date: October 17, 2022

Check out, Subscribe to, and Support Prolekult:   YouTube: http://youtube.com/prolekult Patreon: https://www.patreon.com/prolekult Ko-Fi: ko-fi.com/prolekult Twitter: https://twitter.com/ProlekultFilms Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/prolekultfilms/

Hello, everybody, and welcome back to Rev Left Radio. So on today's episode, we're going to do another version of the show, kind of like what we did with our comrade Paul Connolly over at Marxist Paul on YouTube's recent video on Che, which is he put out a video on Che Guevar, we took the audio, put it on our podcast to promote it. Now we're doing that same thing with a video from the comrades over at Prolacult. I think it's proletcult. I guess it could be prolcult, but a P-R-O-L-E, K-U-L-T. They are a Marxist film writing and culture platform based out of England, and they do really

interesting work, and I was just surfing YouTube, and I came across their newest video on base and superstructure, and I thought it was a really interesting intervention in which this common sort of concept that most Marxists know about is often over-simplified, even in our own minds. And so they did this wonderful video kind of complicating the concepts of basin superstructure and creating new doorways

for a more robust debate on what exactly it means and importantly what the connection between base and superstructure actually is, how it actually functions, what the superstructure and the direct relationship to the base should be confined to or what it should be expanded to include.

These are interesting conversations that I think sometimes we don't always get into the nuances of because the simplified version is so easy and so ready to deploy in a very basic way that sometimes the deeper analysis and wrestling with those concepts doesn't actually happen. So I thought this was very interesting. It goes over what Basin Superstructure is for those that are totally new to the concept and then kind of complicates and adds nuance to those concepts and then opens up room for

more robust debate. So I really like what they do over there. Their video editing is very interesting. Their whole aesthetic is something that I'm very drawn to in and of itself. And then the actual content, the Marxist content, is really top tier and very, very principled and in-depth and interesting and non-sectarian and very serious. And in an age when a lot of people masquerading as Marxists are increasingly unserious, having serious principled Marxists put out serious principled work is even more refreshing. And that's what James and Lexi over at Prolacult do. So for all that reason and more, we're playing this episode.

We're going to link to all their stuff in the show notes. Definitely go subscribe to them on YouTube. You know, give them Rev. Left Love if you come across them on social media. But in any case, we wanted to show more people on a different platform their work in hopes that people would go over, check it out, and support it. So without further ado, here is the audio version of the video and audio essay on Basing and superstructure from James and Lexi over at Prolacult. Enjoy. Marx's concept of the base and superstructure of society sits as the centerpiece of

countless debates within Marxism. Often standing in for a broader discussion of Marxist methodology, and thus deeply impacting how one views other elements of Marxism. The significance of the concept as a definitional element of any strain of Marxism is often unclear to newcomers to the discipline. More than this, despite the pages and pages devoted to debating its meaning, the base superstructure framework is beset by analytical problems in most of its iterations. There is a need for a clear discussion of these complexities. Over the next few minutes, we intend to outline why,

beginning with a simple explanation of the concept, then looking at a sample of the many interpretations it has spawned and their flaws, before finishing with a discussion of a key intervention into these debates which we feel rescues the framework. We urge you to take this conversation forward yourself, and we've included materials to aid with an initial group discussion on the subject in the video description. Welcome to approaching Marxism. At first glance, Marx's base superstructure framework appears deceptively simple. Society is broadly divided into two categories, the economic base of society and the ideological superstructure.

The economic base of society consists of the economic structure of society, that is, the relations of production at any given stage of history, considered in their totality. This forms the real basis of society, upon which grows or arises an ideological superstructure. In most presentations of this concept, this superstructure encompasses ostensibly all ideological forms, including politics, law, art, religion, and philosophy. The way in which production is organized in society, that is the economic basis, determines the ideological superstructure which arises from it, and thus plays a determining role in all of the fields included within this latter category. As Marx says, it is not the consciousness of men that determines their existence, but their social existence that determines their consciousness. These ideological forms are, however, also a site of struggle,

where people become conscious of their economic interests and fight them out. It can thus impact back upon the economic basis of society. This framework is derived from Marx's 1859 preface to a contribution to the critique of political economy. It is often situated as providing an explanation of Marx's method in miniature, and it's easy to see why. Not only does the concept set out the primary and determining position of production in Marx's view of the world, a standpoint present in all of his work, it also appears to begin to explain how this shapes our view of reality.

However, as the copious debates which center around this concept illustrate, this simplicity is illusory. The framework offered here by Marx is open to. a considerable number of conflicting interpretations. Indeed, this process of reinterpretation begins with Marx's closest collaborator, Friedrich Engels, in a now famous letter to Joseph Block in 1890. The focal point for essentially all interpretations of Marx's base superstructure framework is best expressed as a question. To what extent and how does the material base of society determine

the ideological superstructure? Whilst not comprehensive, Stephen Smith's approach of breaking down the most common answers into three broad groups, in his essay considerations on Marx's base and superstructure, is useful. The first position, which Smith terms the fundamentalist thesis holds that there is a direct and causal relation between the economic base of society and the superstructure, and that this relationship is a one-way, or at least vastly unequal, process. In its hardest form, this position sees all ideas as simple reflections of economic phenomena. Though softer versions exist, these two lapse into a technological determinism. The second position, which Smith calls the internal relatedness thesis, takes the opposite

approach, arguing that it is not the case that changes in productive relations bring about changes in non-economic phenomena, but rather that all phenomena are part of a complex network, which collapses the distinctions between economic and non-economic categories in practice. This position cannot be reconciled with Marx's own writing, effectively ignoring his clearly outlined categories in order to return to a liberal pluralism in which all social phenomena may be regarded as determinant. The third position, which Smith calls the over-determination thesis, attempts to bridge the gap between these positions by maintaining that the economic basis of society determines development,

in the last instance, but allowing for a relative autonomy of the superstructure in certain contexts. This amounts to choosing between an economic determinism and a liberal pluralism upon a whim. Ironically, whilst Smith makes this critique of the over-determination thesis, his own answer to the questions posed by the base superstructure framework repeats the same problems, as he argues that Marx makes use of all three of these positions at different points in his work, depending on context, providing no examples of this at all. This amounts to saying that Marx was sometimes an economic determinist, sometimes a liberal pluralist. As should be clear, none of the views discussed to bring us any closer to a

satisfactory interpretation of Marx's position. In a groundbreaking 2016 book, Biography of a Blunder, the Indian Marxist Dilip Idara provides us with a way out of this quagmire. Through a comprehensive treatment of the positions in the base superstructure framework developed after Marx, and an intensive reading of the preface in which the concept is introduced. Edara shows that the debates around the manner in which the base determines the superstructure all hinge upon a fundamental misreading of Marx's work. Rather than an expansive category, encompassing ideology in its every form,

as is held by essentially all later interpretations, Marx limits the superstructure of society to the legal and political spheres. He explicitly separates this limited superstructure, which arises on the economic base of society from the other forms commonly included within it, which he describes as simply corresponding to the base of society. Marx maintains this limitation upon the superstructure not only in the preface, but across all of his treatment of the concept.

Azadara argues this provides a much more coherent approach, as it is quite straightforward to see how politics and law are directly determined by economics, particularly class, and this conception is in keeping with the rest of Marx's work. This does not remove the other ideological spheres into an idealist category either, but allows for them to be taken upon their own grounds as fields of study, understood as forms of consciousness derived from material reality, corresponding to particular historical circumstances,

but not mechanically determined by. them. Whilst Adara's work is likely the beginning of a new set of debates surrounding the base superstructure framework, it must be taken as a welcome beginning. The practical importance of understanding Marx's evocation of the base superstructure framework cuts in many directions, tied up as it is, in fundamental questions of methodology. From a removed perspective, it is evidently vital if we are to avoid the stultifying and politically restrictive confines of economic determinism, or the directionless eclecticism of a liberal approach. More immediately, it serves as a reminder of the primacy of political struggle as a vehicle for

social change, whilst allowing us an understanding that neither ignores cultural forms of struggle nor approaches them in a lifeless and mechanistic way. Realisations which seem ever more pressing in our age beset by so-called culture war. Though not a stand-in for a more rigorous understanding of Marx's methodology, the subject we will return to, the base superstructure framework can provide us with a basis. We hope that this short piece has provided you with a useful window into these questions, and with an understanding of the problems which have plagued Marx's followers

in relation to this component of his theory. Now, it's over to you.