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