Economic Base, Superstructure and their relationship

“In the social production of their existence, men inevitably enter into definite
relations, which are independent of their will, namely relations of production
appropriate to a given stage in the development of their material forces of
production. The totality of these relations of production constitutes the economic
structure of society, the real foundation, on which arises a legal and political
superstructure, and to which correspond definite forms of social consciousness.”
-Karl Marx, A Contribution To The Critique of Political Economy (Preface)

This famous text contains the key to understanding the relationship between the
economic base and its corresponding superstructure in Marx’s grand historical
schema. According to Marx, the productive potential of a society depends on the stage
of development the society is in. Thisdetermines the level of technology, human skills
and environmental conditions, together known as the ‘material forces of production’.
These forces of production influence human interactions and their ‘social relations’.
The material forces of production and the social relations of production together
constitute the ‘economic base’ of a society upon which arises a ‘superstructure’,
which includes the legal, philosophical, and wage relations of the society. [Strictly,
according to Marx only the ROP is the base, but in the Marxist literature sometimes
the entire MOP is treated as base. You can write this but qualify and then limit your
discussion essentially to the ROP as the base]
This essay traces the individual components of the economic base and its
superstructure and explores the relationship between them. It also offers explanation
about why the base is more dominant in determining the superstructure and not the
other way round.

1. The Forces of Production

The productive forces include the material means of production including tools,
machines, raw materials and natural resources. Labourers use these to add value to
capital and transform them into products for sale. Hence, humans are themselves
included in the forces of production. [Humans are not included; their ability to work
i.e. labour power is included (not the labourer)] By acting on nature humans change
both nature and themselves (by acquiring new skills and knowledge) thereby leading
to increased needs and wants. Thus, according to Marx, humans carve out their living
and themselves [Link] forces of production also include the level of
technology and natural resources relating to a stage of historical development, which
shapes the potential of productive activities.
Marx identified three components of production: human labour, subject of labour, and
means of labour. Productive forces are the union of human labour and the means of
labour; means of production are the union of the subject of labour and the means of
labour.2.
In the Marxian view of social development, human nature is determined by the forces
of production of society at a particular point in time and since the productive forces
change, so does human nature. For example, the feudal man had a different set of
abilities and needs than his capitalist counterpart, which is a higher mode of
production. Thus Marx says, “The hand mill gives you the society with the feudal
lord; the steam mill society with the industrial capitalist.”

2. The Social Relations of Production

According to the Marxist formulation, the productive forces give rise to the social
relations of production and exchange comprising of property relations, markets and
legal relations among individuals.
However, these production relations are not concerned with just individuals or single
economic units like a factory, farm etc. Rather, they extend to multiple groups and
units due to the collaborative efforts of the labour process. For example, a factory
which produces agricultural implements acts as inputs to an agricultural farmer whose
produce is the raw materials for a canned food manufacturer and so on.
This gives rise to a complicated system of relations, which are termed as ‘production
relations’ or ‘social relations of production’.
The foundational basis of these production relations is the ownership (or lack thereof)
of the means of production (including capital and other resources), which facilitate the
production process. Such ownership is a possession, which is respected and valued by
social standards and guaranteed by law. [Ownership is not necessary for establishing
dominance in all ROPs (ex: land was not owned by jagirdars in India but they could
extract surplus from land); what is necessary is control over mop and particularly the
surplus. So, you should write ownership &/or control of mop] This gives rise to class
structures in society as well as means of extracting surplus emerging from the
production process along with the distribution of the product. By definition, this
ownership is either private or social.3. Social ownership gives rise to communitarian
property, which is available to all members of society (comprising of everyone related
to that division of labour). Alternatively, private ownership gives rise to individual
property rights owned by individuals or single economic units like a family, company
or the likes. The productive forces and their social relations (determined by the means
of production) are together known as the ‘Modes of Production’ and can be either
‘Antagonistic’ or ‘Non Antagonistic’ in nature. Any mode of production which has
social ownership is termed non antagonistic. However, in antagonistic means of
production, ownership of resources is the privilege of one part of society only which
gives rise to two social classes: one comprising of those who have access to the means
of production and the other who do not and are employed by the members of the first
class. Such a society, primarily serves the interest of those who own the means of
production even to the deterrent of the remainder of the society.

3. The Superstructure
The superstructure comprises largely two components; social consciousness and
legal/political structures, which helpin maintaining a dominant mode of production
and serve the interests of its dominant class.
According to Marx, social relations not only give rise [??] to economic relations but
also influence how individuals interact with one another outside the economic realm.
This includes interactions among families, customs and traditions, which are
constantly repeated and normalized in behavioral patterns to become ‘Social
Consciousness’.
By extension, the activities of the state that guard these customs and regulate actions
give rise to political and legal relations in society. All of these structures essentially
uphold the dominant classes of that society. As mentioned by Oscar Lange, ‘In every
antagonistic mode of production, there must be legal and political relations to protect
the privilege of the dominant class through its ownership of the means of production;
there must also be moral, religious and philosophical ideas that convince people that
this ownership is in the right hands.”
For example, the feudal system required a doctrine of divinity to justify the powers of
the feudal lord over his serfs (as an extension of the King’s divine right to rule) while
in capitalist societies, the law needs to protect the individual property rights to
reassure people of their validity in alienating others from accessing the means of
production. To conclude, Marx viewed the whole of this manifestation along with the
social consciousness to comprise the superstructure as mentioned in the quote
mentioned at the beginning of this essay.

4. Relationship between Economic Base and Superstructure

As mentioned in the diagram, both the economic base and its superstructure are
responsible for their mutual shaping and maintenance, the base is generally dominant
in this function. Hence, the relationship between them is not unidirectional as both
determine the other, but the influence of the base on the superstructure is heavier than
its obverse.
The superstructure comprises of all those social formations, which are necessary for
the sustenance of the economic base. For example, the ancient formation corresponds
to the slave society, serfdom to the feudal and bourgeoisie formation to the capitalist
society. Hence, the superstructure is created by the base, precisely in order to serve it,
actively help it and to consolidate [Link], according to Marx, changes in
productive forces (the economic base) are the driving force behind structural changes
in society.
  Contradictions, Class Struggles and Revolution: Marx says that as people
acquire new skills and abilities, the productive forces develop over time,
which comes into conflict with the existing class structure. This was seen
when the new industrial forces of production came into contradiction with the
ruling feudal classes in the 19th century. Gradually, these become incompatible
with one another as the new forces relate to an entirely different set of work
relations, as seen by the rise of the commercial towns of Manchester and
London which were incompatible with the feudal ways of manorial estates.
This growing contradiction takes the form of class struggle between the rising
classes and the old orthodoxy, intensifying the contradictions between the new
means of production and the old class structure. This continues till the time
revolutionary action overthrows the older class structures and establishes a
new, superior mode of production and corresponding superstructure to protect
it. 5.
This shows that the forces of production rebel against the existing relations of
production and not the other way round.
So, for instance, if hunter-gatherers decide to change their social relations with each
other so as to engage in horticulture, this is not primarily a result of any belief that
horticultural social relations are superior to hunter-gatherer social relations; it is rather
that they want access to the increased material productivity of horticulture over
hunting and gathering.6.

Hence, Marx and Engels say “History is not the development of ideas but that of
productive forces.” And the underlying economic base explains the formation of the
ideas. These ideas are themselves capable of changing some structures of the
economic base, but much less potently as the base changes the superstructure. For
instance, the influential ideas in society are largely representative of the dominant
classes. Therefore, reflective of the non-dominant classes, exist revolutionary ideas,
which in most cases co-exist with the dominant ideas. These revolutionary ideas can
at best change some aspects of the dominant ideas but by themselves cannot
overthrow the entire superstructure. An influence from the base is needed for that.

Hence, contemporary depictions of the base-superstructure relationships are those

5. Conclusion

In conclusion, the economic base comprises of two parts- the forces of production and
the social relations of production. These include things like the level of technology,
the tools and capital, human skills and abilities as well as the economic and human
relations resulting from these. The relations of production give rise to different modes
of production which can be antagonistic or non antagonistic in nature and give rise to
different class structures, contingent on the ownership of the means of production. To
protect the interests of the dominant classes and to reflect the economic base arises a
superstructure. This includes social consciousness, comprising of things like social
values and traditions as well as legal and political structures.

In their relationship with one another, the economic base is more dominant in
influencing the superstructure. This influence is reflected in the development of
productive forces and its contradictions with the older structures, which eventually
leads to class struggle and revolutionary overthrow of the structures. The
superstructure too influences the base, in a more minimal capacity. As Marx and
Engels say, “Not criticism but revolution is the driving force of history.”

Reference:
1. Gurley, J. Historical Materialism and The Rise of Capitalism, (Chp 2.1)
2. The Institute of Economics of the Academy of Sciences of the U.S.S.R., textbook (1957, p xiv)
3. Lange, O. Political Economy, (Page 17)
4. Stalin, J. Concerning Marxism and Linguistics (1950), Page 4.
5. Lenin, V. The State and Revolution; Chapter 1.
6. Harman, C. Marxism and History. Retrieved from “The Red Flag Archive”

Well written and properly structured. However, you need to discuss the base-superstructure interaction
a bit more, particularly the inherent dialectical processes. Explain how the SS being erected on the base
in turn maintains and nurtures the base. Explain in periods of change and transition how conservatism
in superstructure can delay or derail the transformation of the base. Discuss the relations of the base
with the legal-political structure and social consciousness separately by using the quote from Marx at
the beginning of your answer (“on which arises” and “to which corresponds”). For the exams, mention
the laws discussed by Lange and then critique the approach as mechanical and deterministic.
Incorporate the two sided arrows diagram from Gurley (you have discussed this, just add the diagram).

Marks: 17/20