askchapo

Isn't this base vs. superstructure?

I highly recommend people read Luna Oi's translation on Dialectical Materialism: The Worldview and Philosophical Methodology of Marxism-Leninism

It isn't very long, has a glossary of terms in the back, and has visual aids to help you understand dialectical materialism.

When you're ready you can graduate to their latest book: Historical Materialism to learn how to apply dialectical materialism to the study of history.

So there's a careful line to draw to avoid the old trip line that is a mechanistic view of Marxism-Leninism, which is that the material base is all that matters while human consciousness and collective social consciousness are ephemeral substances that do not impact the world. The material base does significantly impact human and social consciousness and indeed greatly shapes them based upon the image itself is based upon, but, the free will of humanity when it is sufficiently strong enough can reshape the material conditions it exists under and thus transforms the system that shapes the collective.

A simple interpretation of this is that the State is one of the strongest forms of collective social consciousness that exists. It is influenced and shaped by the material conditions that give rise to it, but by the power invested into it by the masses can wield that power to shape and reshape the material conditions as it so sees fit. Which is why it is important to identify to which class does the State belong to in order to gain context for which it uses its power.

An example of this is that the Trump government is controlled by reactionaries, pro-protectionist capitalists, fascists, etc. The state under their control reshapes the material conditions of the base by levying tariffs while cutting regulations and taxes for the capitalist camp that controls the levers of power currently. The base has been reshaped, or more appropriately, hollowed out by the capitalist vermin pillaging the copper wires from the walls, and therefore shapes the superstructure by creating precarious and tumultuous economic conditions for the working class that's decaying their standards of living therefore growing their consciousness towards reality.

Which is where the communists come in with creating a dual power system that accumulates enough power to act like a state to reshape the economic base towards socialism. Because if we do not organize and help lead towards a fundamental change to the base, then the reactionaries will take the social space and direct the masses into making a feedback loop that repeats the cycle until the system shatters and we're all thrown into barbarism.

Material conditions do not mean quality of life. It means a set of conditions that relates to how labor and capital are tied to productive (material) forces that must be fulfilled first. It is impossible to enact socialism under a feudal system.

At the risk of extreme simplification, I will give you a very important example from Chinese history.

Wang Mang the Usurper was the only democratically elected leader throughout the thousands of years of Chinese history, and that occurred 2000 years ago (reign AD 9-23). Brought to the throne through popular support from the peasantry, who were touched by his selflessness, thriftiness, humility and perhaps most important during his time, his exemplary Confucian image against the backdrop of the decaying Western Han monarchy (Emperor Ai*, the famous gay emperor).

(*Note: to be fair, the young Emperor Ai aka Liu Xin, did attempt to reform the system, but found himself powerless against the entrenched feudal lords in the imperial court, and eventually chose to indulge in hedonism with his lover and accelerated the downfall of the dynasty)

It is often memed on the Chinese internet that Wang Mang was a time traveler, who wanted to reform the system with ideas far too ahead of its time:

1. Banned slavery and freed the slaves under the feudal landlords (豪族, haozu)
2. Enacted land redistribution
3. Nationalized the natural resources that had been monopolized by the local landlords
4. Pursued currency reforms

Guess what is the outcome?

In less than a decade, 20 million people (half of the entire population) would die from his newly enacted policies, a catastrophe of such disastrous proportion that is only matched by An Lushan’s rebellion some 600 years later.

This is often used as an example of why Great Man Theory is bunk and why successful reforms can only happen when the historical and material conditions exist.

First, you cannot free the slaves when the slaves don’t want to be freed. Why? Because going back to a peasantry life would mean subject to heavy levy from the imperial government, getting bullied and exploited by corrupt local officials, and are often defenseless against banditry. The feudal lords have their own private economy, private army that offer protection to the defenseless peasantry, and in exchange for them to enter into slavery. Being a slave at the time meant having a better life than being left fending for yourself as a “free man”.

Second, you’re touching the vested interests of the feudal lords who command a significant portion of the economy. As emperor (head of state), you are given a lot of autonomy but only within the boundaries that do not threaten the interests of the establishment. It would take until the appearance of Imperial Court Examination from 5th-8th century AD for the emperors to eventually form their own cliques (power base) promoted from the population at large (寒门, hanmen, aka the lower classes) against the entrenched feudal lords (豪族 -> 门阀). Such conditions simply did not exist during the 1st century AD.

Vibes are essentially the underlying assumption of the Great Man Theory, the idea that you simply need to have the right ideas to change the system, rather than to understand that the basic historical and material conditions need to be emerge first.

What made the proletariat a revolutionary class was the transition from feudal serfdom into industrial labor that began in European countries during the French Revolution and the Industrial Revolution. This meant that labor was no longer tied to the land, but directly to the productive force of the industrial capitalist economy. This gave the working class a huge leverage that did not exist in prior slavery or serfdom eras, hence Marx’s “the capitalists created the conditions for their own demise.”

Funnily enough, Wang Mang named his dynasty Xin (新, new), as in “New China”. It’s often joked that this dude time travelled from the future.

I feel like sometimes you guys have taken the idea of materialism and material conditions and turned it into something which it was never intended to be and which is not a useful heuristic. People don't merely make choices out of material concerns, homo economicus is a liberal concept.

As highlighted in the 18th brumaire over and over again. Humans make choices. Sometimes the right man makes a difference, often the wrong one does. But it must be understood in the context in which it happens. Or to boil it down.

"Men make their own history, but they do not make it as they please; they do not make it under self-selected circumstances, but under circumstances existing already"

Other people here had good comments. Ill just add that this is nothing new "Theory becomes a material force as soon as it has gripped the masses"

Just wanted to jump in and say I’m really happy you asked this! I enjoy reading other’s thoughts and questions like this are great for probing and questioning one’s own assumptions/interpretations.

Also I’ve really been enjoying reading Pedagogy of the Oppressed, and the texts cited within that form a good reading list. My interpretation of the subject matter is that it explores how reality is formed by subjects through engaging with their surroundings then reflecting on that engagement (ie praxis). And in that lens, as others have said, it’s a feedback loop between the base shaping the superstructure and vice versa

Material conditions inform vibes, so vibes can be thought of as an abstraction of material conditions. Which can be useful.

Socialism: Vibes-based and Scientific

you might get something out of hunter s thompsons writings. the feeling of change being in the air is something that comes up in his books, particularly fear & loathing in las vegas and fear & loathing on the campaign trail of 72. he was a pretty politically aware and astute man (see his prophetic take in his sports column on september 12th, 2001). he never invoked marx in his writing and I don't know what his awareness of theory really was, but he was generally on the right side of history

I'm pretty sure the whole point of Marxism is that vibes aren't real, they're just the shadows of material relationships. Hegel said three spirits drove history. Marx retorted that it was the forces and relations of production that drove history. The materialst positions that every feeling, every idea, every "superstructure" can be broken down to a physical process that can be studied, quantified, and possibly changed.

And we see that in politics too. When people successfully organize it isn't for abstract concepts. It's for concrete goals. We might use abstract terms like "freedom" or "justice" but anyone actually looking to change things has concrete ideas about what needs to be changed to achieve those goals. Oftentimes words representing abstract ideas obscure the concrete goals of a political movement and mislead the masses which is why Marxists don't like "idealism".

Some smokin hot replies in this thread, very grateful

Saying "vibes" was a bit sloppy. It's on my mind because a lot of chud/lib rhetoric is hooked on a feeling. (many lefties aren't structurally different.) Something close to vibes is essential to these ideologies. The superstructure as I understand it is very diverse just like the base, things like science and art don't follow the same rules as vapid influencer style "discourse" or ignorant MSM thinkpieces

Also I talk to libs, chuds and other fools a lot so I'm real interested in translating back and forth