Talk:Base and superstructure

My role shifts from original composition to translation

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)

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)

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)

Comment on Feto34's edit

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)

Changes in lead section

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)

I think Version 1 is an excellent lead paragraph and should be restored. I don't think it is 'prolix' at all. Version 2 is clumsy and ungrammatical. I agree with Ong saluri's reservations about the use of the word 'economically' in Version 2. The first sentence of Version 2 is actually saying, absurdly, that it is 'economical' for human society to consist of two parts. I don't think this is what the editor intended to imply. Welham66 (talk) 14:41, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Civil Society

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)

What does it all mean?

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)

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)

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)