What’s so Special about Base–Superstructure Determinism?
- This topic has 31 replies, 7 voices, and was last updated 12 years ago by
.
-
Posts
-
Nothing Special at All!
Base–superstructure is the standard structure taken by all deterministic science.
It is the formal structure that makes a science deterministic. Determinism, for us, has no meaning outside of formal base–superstructure science.
Examples of Base–Superstructure Determinism
1. Euclid's Elements. This is the archetype of all formal determinisms. [Its predecessors, like most Greek science, survive only as fragments].
Euclid's "base"' is his five postulates, upon which he "raises" the "superstructure" of classical geometry.
Euclid explores the evolution of a superstructure raised upon a fixed base that also evolves.
Here's how he proceeds:
- He settles on a fixed base [the system invariant] which is his five postulates.
- He then explores the logically-evolving superstructure [the system behaviour] which he is able to raise upon this fixed base.
- When he eventually exhausts these possibilities, he finds further evolution of his superstructure barred by the very base that determines it.
- Being ever practical, without apology, he intervenes to expand the base. He changes the rules of the game.
- He temporarily "unfixes" his necessarily "fixed" base. He dares to vary the system's invariant in order to change the system's behaviour.
- Euclid then restores the rules of the game to continue exploring the deterministic possibilities offered by the revitalized base.
The perceived flawless continuity of Euclid's Elements is preserved because we readers quite naturally follow him in conceiving of the "fixed" base as continually revitalizing itself. For us, as for Euclid, the base simply must change when it no longer suits his/our needs. Hence the necessity for the base to evolve by revolution.
And this is the un-appreciated 2300 year-old formal structure of deterministic science.
2. Paradigms. Thomas Kuhn's Structure of Scientific Revolutions describes the history of physics and chemistry from Greek to Quantum in terms of evolving deterministic base–superstructure forms. For Kuhn, scientific bases are absolutely fixed, but the superstructures raised up on them evolve. This combination constitutes a Kuhnian "paradigm".
Deterministic evolution of the scientific superstructure proceeds until a "crisis" emerges that cannot be accommodated within the paradigm. In essence, new experience finally "disproves" the base and so "disproves" the paradigm. Then follows a period of feverish scientific revolution that climaxes in the introduction of a new scientific base that preserves the best of the old, and so introduces a new paradigm.
It's the same developmental form of every deterministic science. The superstructure evolves as deterministic consequence of a fixed base. The fixed base evolves through revolution.
3. Punctuated Equilibrium. Eldridge and Gould's theory of Darwinian evolution by punctuated equilibrium was directly inspired by Kuhn, but these young bloods were already pre-adapted by their own schooling in Marxism. Their model is stasis—punctuation—stasis: species are static; isolation of sub-populations leads to new species; new species are static. Huxley had said as much against Darwin's preferred view of slow-and-steady change, but Eldridge and Gould supplied the missing determinism.
4. Quantum Mechanics. Commentators with a grandiose perception of "determinism" in a mystical Idealist sense, that is quite unlike the determinism of deterministic base–superstructure science, mistakenly announce that quantum mechanics is an essentially indeterministic science on the grounds that its determinism leads to phenomenal indeterminism. Enough has been demonstrated above to dispel this claim.
Quantum mechanics, despite the statistical form of its determinism as well as its deterministic indeterminism, is the most precise deterministic base–superstructure science we have. [Gosh, you idealist folks, materialsm can't give you everything you fondly desire of the Universe!]
Quantum mechanics's determinism is at one with Euclid's, Newton's, Darwin's and Marx's. Of course the form of its determinism varies from theirs. It studies a different piece of the Universe.
Everything Special about Base–Superstructure
The Party is anchored by very special deterministic base–superstructure science. It takes sustenance from its determinism. Without deterministic science there can be no socialism. Class consciousness includes the understanding that the social superstructure evolves upon a fixed social base, but the fixed social base evolves by revolution. We use this 2300 year-old consciousness to counter our non-class conscious opponents.
Without the deterministic consciousness that the social base determines social behaviour, we have no Object, we have no socialism.
The capitalist base has exhausted its possibilities. Let the capitalists shuffle their deck chairs — not you. Join the movement for socialism that has rock-solid 2300 year-old evidence on precisely how and why you can't evolve the superstructure when you meet a social impasse. You must then change the social base into precisely our Object.
Very interesting post twc. An excellent reply to the oft asked question ‘Is Historical Materialism a Determinist System?I particularly like your reference to Kuhn. Didn’t he argue that when enough‘significant anomalies’ develop there is a crises after which a new paradigm is formed? The capitalist paradigm has certainly developed enough ‘significant anomalies’: War, hunger, poverty, crisis etc.Time for a new socialist paradigm.
Thank you.The amazing thing is how deeply Marx understood all this, long before the three shattering crises of 19th century physics — relativity, quantum mechanics and deterministic chaos of nonlinear systems — proved the universality of deterministic development by evolutionary change of superstructure and revolutionary change of base. The more amazing thing is how superficially Marx's academic followers, who have all the advantages of leisure and all the disadvantages of finding themselves answerable to an academic junta, misunderstood exactly what he so clearly wrote.The class-conscious Party, shut out of the highly-technical academic debates, could only bide its time in quiet confidence of its own case for socialism based on the Party's Object and Declaration of Principles, while the academic marxian economists ripped Marx and marxism to shreds. As always, the Party's Object and Declaration of Principles — which derive from Marx, and embody his conclusions on capitalism and socialism — shielded the Party from taking seriously the dispiriting near-universally acknowledged demolition of marxism by the marxists from the late 1970s until the recent demolition of the perpetrating academic marxian economists by Andrew Kliman of a few years ago.As always, class-conscious science is our most powerful weapon. And that science is deterministic in the 2300 year-old base–superstructure sense of determinism.
Isn't leisure its own problem though? The culture industry breaking free from its base and determining itself? So culture (inc. sport) is now overwhelmingly the most popular mental preoccupation not politics, economics or history.
There's a niggle that worries me about all this base-superstructure stuff. In Marx it is hardly mentioned at all and even then in fleeting and loosely worded passages.By splitting things into rigid and separate spheres you probably cause more problems than it's worth. Is this or that part of the base or the superstructure? For instance class ownership property relations, which are a 'base' element, are also a legal relationship, part of the super-structure. A change in the legal structure (the super-structure) would in this case result in a change in the base! To me it's seems a mistake to make rigid splits between economic and political spheres since they are both in a co-determining relationship.
Karl Marx wrote:The specific economic form, in which unpaid surplus labour is pumped out of direct producers, determines the relationship between rulers and ruled, as it grows directly out of production itself and, in turn, reacts upon it as a determined element..Unfortunately I don't think I will have time to participate in this debate further at this time though…
jondwhite: Isn't leisure its own problem though? The culture industry breaking free from its base and determining itself? So culture (inc. sport) is now overwhelmingly the most popular mental preoccupation not politics, economics or history."Breaking free from its base"! So it no longer needs to make a profit? So it no longer exploits its workers?Is rushing from music stores to the iTunes Store breaking free of the base?Is the nineteenth prequel/sequel/remake of a blockbuster with associated merchandise breaking free of its base?In the name of reason, you use the very phrase "culture industry" that explodes everything you delude yourself to be "free of the base". You have gone so far as to acknowledge culture as an industry! To even consider sport — as in commercial sport — as "breaking free" of its base shows how deluded you really are! Sport is now only commerce.Its practitioners are now high-paid proletarians on drugs, bullied, always scared of being displaced, constantly near to nervous breakdown, feted if they win, forgotten if they lose, castigated if they disappoint, feeders of jingoism on the world stage, willing tools of the advertising industry of the biggest employers of exploited child labour in the world — the very "sporting" Nike, Adidas, etc…Even ordinary health has become a gym subscription, along with the necessary drink of water, a commercial bottle of the stuff.Even to consider modern "culture (inc. sport)" as a "mental preoccupation" is to show how low we've sunk!Most culture is now capitalist-sustaining mind-deadening soporific crap.That, which tries to "break free", not of its base but only of the mind-deadening, falls into the supreme non-class conscious variety. It may be good of its kind, but it's still trapped by the base it deludes itself it's "free of".Finally, to think of "freedom" in association with capitalism is already to delude yourself.Sorry, but you simply haven't shown anything "breaking free from the base". On the contrary, its "lack of freedom" is explained by the "very base" itself.Under capitalism, the only thing that consciously frees itself of the base is class consciousness to work to actively free itself of the base, by replacing this rotten one by our Object.By the way, this "free response" is sponsored [in true "cultural" and "sporting" fashion] by "the need to get rid of such freedoms" — to replace the "cry of the oppressed" delusional freedoms by the only actual one!
What you really are implying is "tinkering with the superstructure" — not "freeing itself of the base".This simply makes my point. The superstructure is determined by the base.For class-conscious socialists, "tinkering with the superstructure" is natural evolution. Changing the base is our revolution.Capitalism has now reached the critical stage at which "tinkering with the superstructure" is tantamount to "re-arranging the deck chairs".
I suggested that the deterministic form of Marx's materialist conception of history is confirmed by 2300 years of base-superstructure deterministic science from Euclid, through Newton, Darwin, Marx, Schrödinger, Crick and Watson, …I sought to explain Marxian "necessity" as a prosaic scientific actuality. I wasn't addressing whether the materialist conception of history is scientifically correct; only whether Marx structured it as a formally correct deterministic science.You assert that Marx's base–superstructure determinism is scientifically incorrect because it is demolished by the "overwhelmingly popular mental preoccupation" of modern-day "culture (inc. sport)" with its complete disdain for "politics, economics or history".Autonomy-and-IndependenceYour issue is the "autonomy-and-independence" of things. This is the central issue of dialectics — hence of understanding, and so of deterministic science.Let's face a more serious challenge than "culture (inc. sport)" breaking free of Marx's social base. We'll take on "ourselves" and our own "free will".Duality of Thing and ProcessIf any "thing" evolves or grows or changes, it must be both thing and process. This duality of thing and process — of fixity within motion — is the only-and-sole source of Marx's base and superstructure, and so the only-and-sole source of determism. For the moment, we ignore a thing's external determinism by the surrounding world to concentrate solely on the internal determinism that preserves its "autonomy-and-independence".Challenge: If base and superstructure don't arise naturally out of the fixity that characterizes change, what do they arise from?Challenge: If determinism doesn't arise naturally out of the fixity that constrains change, what does it arise from?Challenge: If our everyday deterministic comprehension of the world [science] doesn't arise naturally out of our recognition of fixity within change, what does it arise from?Fixity in MotionWhen we identify a "thing", we are conceiving the thing's fixity within its changing "process". We are acknowledging that, however the process may evolve, the thing must forever remain its very own identifiable self — a fixed something [an invariant] that is conserved throughout every change — a fixture that every change must conserve, saecula saeculorum…That's precisely why the thing's "process invariant" always conditions its "laws of motion". That's why the fixed base determines its evolving superstructure — that's why the thing's superstructure is constrained so as to prevent the thing from ever being something other than it is. What more determinism do you want?A process's invariant may at first appear to be no more than a sorry isolated scrap of information we have on it. But it is the most important scrap of scientific information we have on it. All subsequent information, scrap or otherwise, we have on it is merely an extended postscript to the invariant scrap.So, the determinist base or process invariant is:the fixity of the processthe way we characterize the processthe signature we recognize the process bythe boundary law-of-motion of the processthe determiner of the process's internal possibilities — its possible superstructuresthe determiner, in conjunction with external determinist processes, of the life history of the process — its actual superstructure.We consider private ownership and control of society's resources, instruments and labouring activity by the capitalist class as the social base, or the process invariant, of capitalism.We consider common ownership and democratic control of society's resources, instruments and labouring activity by the whole community as the social base, or the process invariant, of socialism.Both are equally deterministic. Under which determinism do we desire to live out our social lives?Autonomous-and-Independent Development, but SubservientWe now consider the "thing" in conjunction with the world, and how external determinist processes shape the thing's actual life history.Unlike the Universe [the universal thing], our "limited" thing is determined not only by its own base but also by the bases of things other than, and external to, itself. It now becomes multiply relatively "autonomous-and-independent" because its own possibilities are no longer only limited by its own base, but these already-limited possibilities are themselves narrowed down by the equally-limited possibilities that are themselves determined by all external processes of which the "thing" itself forms a part. Since we are dealing with the intersection of possibilities, which possibilities temporarily dominate which is purely circumstantial. But, whatever the outcome, no determinisms can ever be violated. In other words, things always behave as themselves, and not as other things.In summary, a thing's behaviour — or the behaviour of the elements that comprise its superstructure — is multiply subservient — internally to its base and externally to the world. As Shakespeare's Sir Toby Belch, an expert on "free will", defended his own worldly behaviour — "Confine myself! I will confine myself no better than I am!"[As to the universe, we hold the scientific conviction that the universal base–superstructure is its own naturally recursive self, and is not a mere superstructure raised upon a fantastic hoped-for super-natural life-resurrecting creator base.]Elements within the Social SuperstructureCollectively, the many "things" that inhabit the social superstructure cannot violate the constraints placed upon them by the social base. Individually, some of them can be in opposition to the base, so long as the rest of the social superstructure keeps the collection in check.So "culture (inc. sport)" appear to be relatively "autonomous-and-independent" and merely subject to their own bases, but the social superstructure they inhabit is absolutely subservient to the social base, and that deterministically limits the scope for any such "autonomous-and-independent of the social base" life histories of these by now discredited capitalist-perverted expressions of our natural humanity.The social revolution is precisely the social superstructure recognizing how to free itself — the whole collection of its things — from subservience to the constraints [determinism] of a social base that it has grown to despise, that it has outgrown!Class consciousness is precisely "free will" recognising how to free itself from subservience to such an enslaving social base.In all other senses, "free will" is always subservient to the social base and to the social superstructure's already-limited possibilities, which are further narrowed down by external determinisms that constrain society itself [and therefore its base and superstructure] — such significant external "things" for society as its natural resources.Afterthoughts[In passing. David Harvey's video lectures on Marx's Capital Volumes 2 and 3 emphasize [for almost an hour] the issue of autonomy-and-independence of financial capital relative to industrial capital, despite its subservience.Harvey absolutely rejects Marx's materialist conception of history in the base–superstructure deterministic sense described here, and he absolutely lacks conviction in Marxian dialectics — of course, that hardly distinguishes him from anyone else. Consequently, David Harvey makes for heavy weather whenever he directly tackles these signature Marxian "invariants" that animate Capital. Finally, he's not a class-conscious socialist, but merely a seeker after state-regulated capitalism.Yet, none of the above is a major barrier to learning Marx's Capital from his open, honest, engaging, original, clear, patient and enjoyable introduction, guide and survey of Capital.]Finally, I feel obliged to affirm that these are my own views, and not necessarily those of the Party. I feel it is important to state them. The reference to "you" is rhetorical, and not personal.
twc wrote:"Both are equally deterministic. Under which determinism do we desire to live out our social lives?"I agree with you. I have argued a similar proposition myself in the past. If the base did not determine the superstucture then why do we want to change the base? Why not 'tinker' with the superstructure as the reformists do?The party's case must be based on your argument! We are the only Party that recognises that the capitalist base is determining the superstructure and a revolution is required to change the base.ALL reformists reject the MCH. ALL reformists think the superstructure can be reformed into something satisfactory. And they have ALL been shown to be wrong. Another important question is the relationship between 'forces' and 'relations'. Marx argued that they 'correspond' and if 'relations' stand in the way of 'forces' then they ('relations') will be forced out of existence and replaced. Why is this not happening? The 'power' of the superstructure?
Shakespeare on MarxMy quotation from Sir Toby Belch [Twelfth Night] was taken from memory, and I misquoted him. Here is the conversation: Maria: Ay, but you must confine yourself within the modest limits of order.Sir Toby Belch: Confine? I’ll confine myself no finer than I am. [These clothes are good enough to drink in …] Sir Toby makes a perfect proxy for Capitalism. We socialists owe him the honour of directly shafting all would-be reformers of capitalism, whether fabian or modern think-tanker [right-wing, left-wing, wish-bone], whether pragmatic politician or weak-brained intellectual like Karl Popper, whether tutti frutti…Like Maria, what reformers actually want is to "reform" their victim. But that's exactly what Sir Toby's prepared to do, by "confining" himself as always to his very own nature, but not a jot more!Here, in the revised socialist Regietheater version of Twelfth Night… Reformer: You must reform yourself.Capitalism: Reform? I’ll reform myself no better than I am. [Fat chance!] But, Shylock [The Merchant of Venice] speaks not merely for capitalism. He speaks for the materialist conception of history — a topic easily understood by a Venetian banker. He plainly comprehends the social necessity of base–superstructure determinism… Shylock: … You take my house when you do take the prop that doth sustain my house. You take my life when you do take the means whereby I live. That, in a nutshell, is our case. The capitalist class takes away "the means whereby we live". They take away our lives.It is up to us to socially reclaim the "means whereby we live".
This article may be of interest:http://libcom.org/library/separation-economic-political-capitalism-ellen-meiskins-wood
Thanks for a genuine challenge to my stated position.A challenge by, apparently, a respected, deep-thinking leading political scientist of the Left. One, who's apparently spent a life-time honing her political ideas within the well-provided halls and intellectual sanctuary of academia. [Then, so has David Harvey.]I'll need time to digest. A reply may take days for a variety of reasons.If she ain't a class-conscious socialist, she's vulnerable! Again, for a variety of reasons.Expect a demolition!
DJP wrote:This article may be of interest: http://libcom.org/library/separation-economic-political-capitalism-ellen-meiskins-woodHer observation: In capitalism, the economy exploits and the state controls.Our conclusion (since 1904): Control the state to abolish the exploitation.Her conclusion (in 1981, in thrall to Lenin): Combine the economic-and-political class struggles.Most of her article is excellent. Her defence of the materialist conception of history is devastating to her opponents, G. A. Cohen and Simon Clarke. Appreciation of her achievement will have to await another thread.Our present topic has moved on to the puzzling intermixing of base and superstructure or, specifically, the intermixing of the economic and the legal-and-political spheres — something which also puzzles Ellen Meiskins Wood.
DJP wrote:Is this or that part of the base or the superstructure?For instance class ownership property relations, which are a 'base' element, are also a legal relationship, part of the super-structure. A change in the legal structure (the super-structure) would in this case result in a change in the base!To me it's seems a mistake to make rigid splits between economic and political spheres since they are both in a co-determining relationship.It is a complex task to unravel intertwined actualities.I know of only one way to accomplish this — to examine the intertwined complexity through base–superstructure deterministic science. This will follow in instalments.For the moment, recall how Marx in Capital scoffed at the apparently co-determining relationship of supply-and-demand, which "explains nothing when they balance out".Co-determinations, in the form of equilibrium and reciprocity, are everywhere and omnipresent. They may be conditions of determinisms, but can't be deterministic themselves because they are bi-directional.Determinism, like time, implies direction. Otherwise, it's something else…
twc wrote:Our conclusion (since 1904): Control the state to abolish the exploitation.Isn't this an example of a change in the superstructure causing a change in the base?
twc wrote:For the moment, recall how Marx in Capital scoffed at the apparently co-determining relationship of supply-and-demand, which "explains nothing when they balance out".Marx here was also referring to a third thing, price. The base-superstructure analogy is just that, an analogy. It may be a useful illustration in some situations but more often than not it obscures more than it explains.This excellent pamphlet explains historical materialism very neatly and never once makes reference to 'the base and superstructure'. I don't think many other party publications have either – for good reasons.http://www.worldsocialism.org/spgb/pamphlets/historical-materialismIn this study guide 'base and superstructure' is touched on, but it's usefulness questionedhttp://www.worldsocialism.org/spgb/education/study-guides/materialist-conception-history
Base and superstructure is implied rather than stated in the party's pamplets and in the writings of Marx and Engels. For example, one cannot ignore the implication in this quote from Engels. The base dictates until the working class acts upon the base and it is only by this act does society control the base. Before socialist revolution the base dictates otherwise we wouldn't bother. I do accept that many 'marxists' have interpreted base and superstructure rather mechanically but as Marx wrote – the economic base always ultimately asserts itself.“With the seizing of the means of production by society production of commodities is done away with, and, simultaneously, the mastery of the product over the producer. Anarchy in social production is replaced by systematic, definite organisation. The struggle for individual existence disappears. Then for the first time man, in a certain sense, is finally marked off from the rest of the animal kingdom, and emerges from mere animal conditions of existence into really human ones. The whole sphere of the conditions of life which environ man, and which have hitherto ruled man, now comes under the dominion and control of man who for the first time becomes the real, conscious lord of nature because he has now become master of his own social organisation. The laws of his own social action, hitherto standing face to face with man as laws of nature foreign to, and dominating him, will then be used with full understanding, and so mastered by him. Man’s own social organisation, hitherto confronting him as a necessity imposed by nature and history, now becomes the result of his own free action. The extraneous objective forces that have hitherto governed history pass under the control of man himself. Only from that time will man himself, with full consciousness, make his own history – only from that time will the social causes set in movement by him have, in the main and in a constantly growing measure, the results intended by him. It is the humanity’s leap from the kingdom of necessity to the kingdom of freedom.“To accomplish this act of universal emancipation is the historical mission of the modern proletariat. To thoroughly comprehend the historical conditions and thus the very nature of this act, to impart to the now oppressed class a full knowledge of the conditions and of the meaning of the momentous act it is called upon to accomplish, this is the task of the theoretical expression of the proletarian movement, scientific socialism.”Frederick Engels, Anti-Duhring (1878)
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.