Sociologists before Marx, as V.I. Lenin noted, did not go further than describing social phenomena from the point of view of one ideal or another. This was the root of subjectivism in sociology. Marxism overcame this defect of previous sociology “by isolating from all areas public life economic sphere, by isolating from all social relations – production relations, as basic, initial, defining all basic relations.”

Marxism established that ideological relations and the corresponding forms of institutions and organizations should be explained not from themselves, as the idealists did, but from the material, production relations that form the economic basis of society. Thus, Marxism provided a completely objective criterion for separating defining social relations from derivative ones, highlighting production and economic relations as the structure of society, its basis. In this regard, Marx and Engels introduced the concepts of base and superstructure into science.

People cannot produce material goods without entering into certain production relations with each other. “The totality of these relations,” says Marx, “constitutes the economic structure of society, the real basis on which the legal and political superstructure rises and to which certain forms of social consciousness correspond.”

It is not difficult to understand that relations of production, on the one hand, are a necessary element of the method of production, and on the other, they constitute the basis, the basis for those social phenomena that arise on this basis.

You cannot mix the method of production as the material basis of everything social development, with the economic basis as the basis of only superstructural phenomena.

The category of economic basis is both general historical and specifically historical. This means that each social formation has its own economic basis. Accordingly various types production relations, the corresponding types of economic bases are formed: primitive communal, slaveholding, feudal, communist. Consequently, the dominant type of production relations determines the corresponding type of economic basis.

Each economic base inevitably gives rise to its corresponding superstructure. The superstructure is a set of social phenomena that arise and develop on the basis of a certain economic basis, such as: political, legal, ethical, aesthetic, philosophical, religious, etc. views, ideas (forms of social consciousness) and corresponding institutions and organizations.

Historical experience shows that social ideas arise first, and then the institutions and organizations corresponding to them.

The superstructure, like the base, is both a general historical and a specifically historical category. The superstructure is necessarily inherent in every social formation. Each type of basis corresponds to a certain type of superstructure. Therefore, the basis generates one and not several superstructures. The superstructure, according to Lenin, is the form of existence of the economic structure of society, as content. The superstructure reflects its basis, its nature (essence), just as form reflects its content.

The area of ​​the superstructure is an arena of intense class struggle. The dominant ideas and organizations in an antagonistic society are the ideas and organizations of the economically dominant class.

A general sociological law operates in society: the base determines the superstructure. This means that what is the basis, so is basically the superstructure. The economic basis is the source, the basis that determines the nature and content of the superstructure. In general, a change in the base precedes a change in the superstructure.

The determining influence of the base on the superstructure should not be understood in a simplistic way. A change in the superstructure does not occur automatically following a change in the basis. The fact is that the superstructure is relatively independent. On the one hand, it is distinguished by greater conservatism, less mobility and variability than the basis. Therefore, in its development it lags behind the development and change of the basis, just as form in development lags behind content. On the other hand, some superstructure phenomena may overtake the existing base. Because of this, in the development of the base and superstructure, contradictions between them constantly arise and are resolved.

From the determining role of the base in relation to the superstructure it does not follow that it is passive and indifferent to the base. The reverse active influence of the superstructure on the development of the base is a general historical pattern.

The active role of various economic elements is manifested in two ways. They can accelerate or slow down the development of the basis, strengthen or destroy it.

When the old economic relations turn into fetters for the development of productive forces, then the era of social revolution begins, accompanied by a revolutionary transformation of the base and superstructure of the old society.

The revolutionary replacement of the old basis with a new one is a natural process.

Base and superstructure

The state of the productive forces determines, as we have seen, the nature of people's production relations, that is, the economic structure of society. This economic system in turn represents basis(foundation, foundation) on which diverse public relations, ideas and institutions. Social ideas (political, legal, philosophical, religious, etc.), institutions and organizations (state, church, political parties, etc.), arising on this basis, form superstructure society. The theory of base and superstructure explains how the mode of production ultimately determines all aspects of social life, and shows the connection between economic social relations and all other relations of a given society.

Each historically given society has its own specific basis and a corresponding superstructure.

The social division of society—its class composition—depends on the dominant form of ownership, and this in turn determines the nature of political institutions and legal norms. Monarchy is unthinkable under socialism, and universal suffrage would be impossible in a slave society. Feudal production relations presuppose, as we will see below, not only property, but also personal dependence of the peasant on the landowner (serfdom). In feudal law, this is expressed in the form of legal inequality between peasants and feudal lords: the feudal landowner could not only appropriate the peasant’s labor, but also interfere in his life in every possible way, while the peasant remained powerless.

The transition to capitalist production relations entailed changes in legal relations. Replacing direct coercion and personal dependence with “dis-

“the principle of hunger” found its legal expression in the fact that the law formally equated the worker and the capitalist. But, since bourgeois law is based on a system private property, the equality he proclaimed essentially only consolidates the dominant position of the propertied classes. Consequently, political and legal relations are derived from economic relations and are determined by the latter.

The same must be said regarding philosophical, religious, moral, artistic and other social ideas and ideas. It is known, for example, that in primitive society Captives captured during wars between different tribes were killed and sometimes eaten. Later they began to be enslaved. Why did such a “softening” of social mores occur? Yes, because the growth of labor productivity made it possible to appropriate the labor of others, the exploitation of man by man. On this economic basis, new morals and new views characteristic of the slave era were born.

In the same way, changes in production relations that occur under socialism produce a radical revolution in the views, morals, and standards of behavior of members of society. Under capitalism, speculation is considered the same profession as, say, the profession of a doctor and a lawyer - a profession that best case scenario regulated (in the interests of large speculators, to the detriment of small ones), but always legalized, like the institutions serving this type of activity (for example, the stock exchange). It cannot be otherwise in a society where the exploitation of other people’s labor is legalized and money is the highest value, the measure of all virtues. Under socialism, such actions are not only morally condemned by society, but also prosecuted by law.

From the fact that the base determines the superstructure, it follows that every change in the basis - production relations - entails a change in the superstructure, fundamental changes in the field of state, law, political relations, morality, ideology. The superstructure, in turn, influences production relations and can slow down or accelerate their change. It is clear, for example, that the political institutions of the modern bourgeoisie (primarily the state), its law and ideology play an important role in the protection of capitalist property and hinder the long-overdue replacement of it with socialist (public) property.

In the superstructure of any class society, the ideas and institutions of the ruling class are dominant. But along with them, the superstructure also includes the ideas and organizations of the oppressed classes, which help these classes fight for their interests.

Thus, the fact of the split of bourgeois society into workers and capitalists is sooner or later reflected in the consciousness of both. This leads to the fact that, along with the class ideology and organizations of the bourgeoisie - its state, political parties, the press, etc. - the ideology and organizations of the working class appear and develop in society. Workers sooner or later realize themselves as a special class, they awaken to the consciousness of the commonality of their interests, their incompatibility with the interests of the capitalists. Awareness of class interest leads to the fact that workers begin to unite for a joint struggle against the capitalists. The advanced part of the working class unites in political party, trade unions and other mass organizations of workers are created. The relations that bind the proletarians into a class organization - a political party, trade unions - are already relations that, before being established, passed through the consciousness of people - after all, workers join the party consciously, for ideological reasons and of their own free will. Among the workers, class solidarity and its own morality are developing, which is opposite to the dominant bourgeois morality.

Thus, on the real basis of class relations, a whole pyramid is erected from different worldviews, social feelings, political and other organizations and institutions - all that is united by the concept of the superstructure.

In any society, the combination of its various aspects - productive forces, economics, politics, ideology, etc. - is not accidental. There cannot be a society in which feudal production relations would be attached to the productive forces of, say, the capitalist era, and slave-owning ideology would rise above them.

The nature of the productive forces and the level of their development predetermine the relationships into which people enter into the production process, and these relationships form the basis on which, in turn, a certain political and ideological superstructure grows. Each society therefore represents an integral organism, the so-called socio-economic formation, i.e. certain historical type society with its characteristic mode of production, base and superstructure.

The concept of socio-economic formation is of great importance for the entire science of society. It allows us to understand why, despite all the variety of specific details and features, all peoples pass through basically common path. After all, the history of each of them is ultimately determined by the development of productive forces, which is subject to the same internal laws. The development of society occurs in the form of a consistent, natural change in

socio-economic formations, and the people living in the conditions of a more advanced formation show other peoples their future, just as they show them their past.

The doctrine of socio-economic formations tears away the mystical veils from the history of mankind, making it understandable and knowable. “The chaos and arbitrariness that had hitherto reigned in views on history and politics were replaced by a strikingly integral and harmonious scientific theory, showing how from one way of social life, due to the growth of productive forces, another, higher one develops...” (V.I. Lenin) 3 .

Denoting social relations of a historically defined society as whole system, wherein material relations represent its real basis, the foundation of society, and political and ideological relations represent the superstructure that grows on this basis and is conditioned by it. The basis of society is a set of historically determined relations of production. The superstructure is the totality of ideological attitudes, views and institutions; it includes state and law, as well as morality, religion, philosophy, art, political and legal forms of consciousness and corresponding institutions. "IN social production In their lives, Marx wrote, people enter into certain, necessary relations independent of their will - relations of production that correspond to a certain stage of development of their material productive forces. The totality of these production relations constitutes the economic structure of society, the real basis on which the legal and political superstructure rises and to which certain forms of social consciousness correspond” (Marx K. and Engels F., Works, 2nd ed., vol. 13, p. 6 -7).

The historical change in the basis is caused and conditioned by a change in the nature of the productive forces of society. A historically defined basis determines the character, type of social superstructure. A revolution in the economic system of a given society causes a change, a revolution in the entire social superstructure.

Concepts of B. and N. serve as a methodological prerequisite for the analysis of any specific society. However, these categories themselves do not contain qualitative characteristics certain B. and N. In addition, it should be taken into account that “... the same economic basis is the same from the side of the basic conditions - thanks to the infinitely varied empirical circumstances, natural conditions, racial relations, historical influences acting from without, etc. - can reveal in its manifestation endless variations and gradations, which can only be understood through the analysis of these empirically given circumstances” (K. Marx, ibid., vol. 25, part 2, p. 354). The same diversity can be found in the superstructure within the same formation. The specific nature of B. and n. is established as a result of their concrete study by historical materialism and other social sciences.

from Greek ????? – foundation) – the basic concepts of historical materialism, the Marxist understanding of society. The great historical merit of Marx and Engels was that from the entire totality of social relations that form a given society, they singled out material relations as the real basis, the foundation of society, and considered ideological social relations as a superstructure that grows on this basis and is conditioned by it. The main idea of ​​historical materialism, writes Lenin, “was that social relations are divided into material and ideological. The latter are only a superstructure over the former” (Works, 4th ed., vol. 1, p. 134). Marx gave the classic formulation of base and superstructure and their relationships in the famous preface to the book “On the Critique of Political Economy” (1859). Marx wrote in this preface: “In the social production of their lives, people enter into certain, necessary, relations independent of their will - relations of production that correspond to a certain stage of development of their material productive forces. The totality of these production relations constitutes the economic structure of society, the real basis , on which the legal and political superstructure rises and to which certain forms of social consciousness correspond" (Marx K. and Engels F., Soch., 2nd ed., vol. 13, pp. 6–7). Thus, by the economic basis of society, Marx understands the totality of historically determined production relations that make up the economic structure of a given society. And by superstructure, Marx understands, first of all, the state and law, as well as such forms of social consciousness as morality, religion, philosophy, art, political and legal form consciousness. Idealists of all directions see the defining foundation of society, its basis in certain social ideas, forms of social consciousness, or in such political institutions and public institutions as the state or law. But to consider social relations and social phenomena in this way means to turn them on their head, to distort their real connection. Historical materialism proceeds from the fact that people, before engaging in science, religion, philosophy, art, politics, must drink, eat, dress, have a home, and for this they must engage in production. The production of material goods necessary for life and instruments of production is the original historical act, underlying the transformation of the herd of our humanoid ancestors into human society, at the basis of all social historical life of people. The production of material goods has always been and is of a social nature. When engaged in the production of material goods, people enter into certain relationships not only with nature, but also with each other. These relations between people in the production process - economic or production relations - develop independently of the will of people. Their character is always determined by the state of the material productive forces. The set of historically determined production relations that make up the economic structure of a given society is therefore the basis, the foundation of any society, because they determine the character, nature of the state (political superstructure), law (or legal superstructure), public views people, ideas: moral, religious, philosophical, artistic, political and institutions corresponding to these views. Characteristics economic basis are that, firstly, it is of a historically changing nature. The change in the basis is caused and conditioned by a change in the nature of the productive forces of society. A historically defined basis determines the character, type of social superstructure. A revolution in the economic system (that is, the basis) of a given society causes a change, a revolution in the entire social superstructure. Characterizing this process, Marx writes in the above-mentioned preface to “A Critique of Political Economy”: “At a certain stage of their development, the material productive forces of society come into conflict with existing production relations, or - which is only the legal expression of the latter - with property relations, within which they have developed so far. From the forms of development of the productive forces, these relations turn into their fetters. Then the era of social revolution begins. With the change economic basis More or less quickly a revolution takes place in the entire enormous superstructure. When considering such revolutions, it is always necessary to distinguish the material revolution, ascertained with natural scientific precision, in the economic conditions of production from the legal, political, religious, artistic or philosophical, in short, from the ideological forms in which people are aware of this conflict and are fighting for its resolution" (there same, p. 7). The social superstructure is called a “superstructure” because it is brought to life and determined by the basis. Each historically determined superstructure has its own basis. What is the basis, so is the superstructure of a given society. Like the basis, it also has a historical character The capitalist basis, its nature, character also corresponds to a certain superstructure conditioned by it: the bourgeois state, bourgeois law, the dominance in society of bourgeois political, legal, religious, moral, philosophical, artistic views. In a socialist society, its economic basis corresponds to a socialist superstructure, that is, a socialist state, socialist law, socialist, political, legal, moral, philosophical and artistic views, domination socialist ideology generally. The superstructure in a class society, naturally, has a class character. This means that the state, law, and social ideas that make up the superstructure have a class character. Due to the antagonistic nature of the basis of such formations as slavery, feudalism, capitalism, this antagonism is also reflected in the superstructure itself. So, for example, in a capitalist society its basis is based on the exploitation of the proletariat by the bourgeoisie, on the antagonism of these two classes. In the area of ​​the ideological superstructure of capitalist society, this is reflected in the existence, along with the bourgeois ideology dominant in this society, of the socialist ideology of the working class; it, as a theory of scientific communism, is created by the ideologists of the proletariat, but at the same time it is an expression of the antagonism of capitalist society, antagonism rooted in its mode of production, in capitalist production relations." The process of the emergence and development of social ideas is a complex and often contradictory process; these ideas, as well as the institutions corresponding to them, do not come into being as an automatic reflex of the basis, the economy. Economics does not create anything out of itself, no philosophical, religious, moral, aesthetic or political ideas. Ideas and institutions (as, indeed, , and economic relations themselves) are created by people. But they create these social ideas not arbitrarily, but in accordance with existing social, primarily economic, conditions (i.e. the basis) and social laws. These people are often dominated by the traditions of past generations A break with these traditions occurs among the advanced classes under the influence of social, primarily economic, conditions and contradictions. There is relative independence in the development of social ideas. Only in the final analysis are philosophical, aesthetic, moral, religious and other ideas determined by the economic basis. And their emergence and change are directly influenced by previous ideas, as well as the ideological and political struggle of classes and parties. Between the base and the superstructure there are relations not only of cause and effect. Their connection is dialectical in nature. Once it has arisen on a certain basis, the superstructure begins to have a reverse impact on the basis that gave birth to it and the development of society as a whole. In this interaction, the determining role, of course, is played by the basis. The reverse impact of the superstructure is of a different nature. The progressive superstructure helps its base and the given society to take shape, strengthen, and develop. The reactionary superstructure protects the inviolability of its reactionary base and inhibits the development of the productive forces. In certain historical periods, facts have also been observed that this superstructure still contributes to the development of society in one respect, some of its aspects, and inhibits the development of other elements, aspects, and processes. F. Engels, characterizing the role of the state as a political superstructure, writes: “The reverse effect state power on economic development can be of three types. She can act in the same direction - then things go faster; it can act against economic development - then at present everyone large people it collapses after a certain period of time; or it may hinder economic development in certain directions and push it forward in other directions. This case comes down, in the end, to one of the previous ones. But it is clear that in the second and third cases, political power can cause the greatest harm to economic development and can give rise to a waste of forces and material in massive quantities" (Marx K. and Engels F., Selected letters, 1953, pp. 427–28). What is said here about the role of the state can be said about the role of the superstructure as a whole, since we're talking about about the formations preceding socialist society. The superstructure thus always plays an active role in society. The bourgeois state and law, bourgeois social ideas protect bourgeois society and its foundations. Bourgeois political and legal ideas and institutions, the entire bourgeois superstructure, are a powerful weapon of the bourgeoisie in the class struggle against the oppressed classes. Opposed to the ideas and institutions dominant in bourgeois society revolutionary ideas and the institutions of the working class (party, trade unions) are directed against the bourgeois base and the dominant bourgeois ideas and institutions. The conditions for the emergence of a socialist base and a socialist superstructure are unique and specific, just as the emergence of a socialist society is specific in comparison with capitalism. The economic basis of socialism does not and cannot arise in the depths of capitalism. Necessary conditions the emergence of the socialist basis are: 1) modern productive forces and their conflict with capitalist production relations; 2) socialist revolution and dictatorship of the proletariat. The socialist superstructure in the form of a proletarian state and law, Marxist-Leninist socialist ideas helps to take shape and strengthen its socialist base. The socialist superstructure protects its base and promotes it in every possible way comprehensive development. Despite some specificity in the emergence of the socialist base and the socialist superstructure, the conditionality last first is preserved here too. The working class, the bearer of socialist relations of production, is the result of the economy of capitalism. His ideas, views, worldview arise as an expression of his position in capitalism. society and as a result of conflict in the capitalist mode of production. Without the working class, the socialist revolution and the dictatorship of the proletariat could not arise. Further. The socialist superstructure under socialist conditions reflects the socialist base and is conditioned by it. The development of the socialist economy and its changes here also cause a corresponding change in the superstructure. The capitalist superstructure, like the capitalist base, has long become reactionary. They are the force that delays social progress. Bourgeois ideas justify and defend economic, social and political oppression, national and racial inequality and enslavement, justify and sanctify imperialist wars. In contrast to capitalist base and superstructure, the socialist base and the socialist superstructure are progressive, revolutionary. They are driving force progressive development of society. Following the victory of the socialist method of production in a socialist society, its specific ones are established and begin to operate (along with the general laws characteristic of all formations). patterns of development that characterize the new nature and new character of movement of this society. Accordingly, here, under socialism, the role of politics increases. and ideological. add-ons. In capitalist In society, the economy and its laws operate spontaneously. Under socialism, the role of the Soviet state Communist Party , the role of Marxist-Leninist theory and the socialist consciousness of the masses - the socialist social superstructure as a whole, play a great mobilizing, organizing, guiding role. Spontaneous development is being replaced by conscious development. From the realm of blind necessity a leap is made into the realm of freedom. The socialist superstructure changes and develops following development and in accordance with the development of the socialist base. Thus, in the course of social development, some functions of the socialist state die out (for example, the function of suppressing exploiters) and organizational, economic, cultural and educational functions, as well as the function of protecting the socialist Motherland from imperialist forces, develop. The socialist superstructure is an active and powerful instrument for building a communist society. During the period of extensive construction of communism, the role of the Communist Party, communist consciousness, the role of conviction, the role of the moral, ideological principle in all social life increases. Birthmarks that persist even in the conditions of a socialist society, remnants of the consciousness of the old society, hinder and slow down the development of society and the construction of communism. Therefore, overcoming the remnants of capitalism in the minds of people, their communist education is the most important condition for the construction of communism, the formation of a new person. The higher the communist consciousness of the people, the more successful the construction of a communist society will be. On the question of the basis, incorrect views were expressed in Marxist literature, identifying the basis with the mode of production. But these are somewhat different categories that do not coincide with each other. On the issue of the superstructure, in the work of J.V. Stalin “Marxism and Questions of Linguistics” (1950), the view was put forward that, unlike language, the superstructure does not live long, only for one era. It is true that the superstructure of society as a whole lives for one era. The superstructure of the slave-owning society collapsed along with the slave-owning base. In our country, along with the liquidation of the capitalist base, the bourgeois superstructure was also liquidated. It's right. But it is also true that a number of ideological phenomena, such as religion or its individual forms: Christianity, Judaism, Mohammedanism, due to a number of historical conditions, are experiencing their era. Christianity originated in the era of slavery and existed in the era of feudalism and capitalism, although somewhat modified. But this does not make religion and its indicated forms cease to be part of the corresponding superstructures. Due to traditions, tendencies of social consciousness lagging behind social existence, as well as due to certain common features, characteristic of all antagonistic formations, certain ideological. forms and social ideas, views survive the era in which they arose, are inherited and used by other, subsequent social formations. But not only reactionary ideological forms, due to the lag of consciousness, are preserved in subsequent social formations with their new basis. Survives centuries and is preserved by peoples, progressive forces, great classical art, the art of Aeschylus, Sophocles, Euripides, Raphael, Leonardo da Vinci, Michelangelo, Shakespeare, Goethe, Pushkin, Glinka, Repin, Tchaikovsky and other luminaries. In the transition from one social formation to another, respectively, when one base and superstructure is replaced by another base and superstructure, only what is reactionary and obsolete is destroyed, liquidated by revolutionary forces. And, on the contrary, everything great, advanced that was in the field of spiritual culture, in art, is preserved. Otherwise there would be no progress. Therefore, the element of greater or lesser “duration” as a criterion for classifying social phenomena as “superstructural” and “non-superstructural”, put forward by I.V. Stalin, as we see, is incorrect, it contradicts historical facts. Concepts "B." and "N." have deep methodological meaning, equipping the researcher of societies. materialistic life understanding of societies. phenomena, understanding the need to bring the analysis ideological. phenomena in society to their material basis, the basis where the source and cause of their occurrence and development are rooted. Lit.: Marx K. and Engels F., German Ideology, Works, 2nd ed., vol. 3, M., 1956; Marx K., [Letter] to P.V. Annenkov, December 28. 1846, in the book: Marx K. and Engels F., Izbr. proizv., vol. 2, 1955; Engels F., Ludwig Feuerbach and the end of classical German philosophy, ibid.; his, [Letter] to K. Schmidt 5 Aug. 1890, ibid.; his, [Letter] to F. Mering, July 14, 1893, ibid.; by him, [Letter] to G. Starkenburg, January 25. 1894, ibid.; Lenin V.I., What are “friends of the people” and how do they fight against the Social Democrats?, Works, 4th ed., vol. 1; him, The Revolution teaches, in the same place, vol. 9; his, Three sources and three components of Marxism, ibid., vol. 19; his, State and Revolution, ibid., vol. 25; him, On the State, ibid., vol. 29; Plekhanov G.V., On the question of the development of a monistic view of history, Izbr. Philosophical works, vol. 1, M., 1956; him, Materialistic understanding of history, ibid., vol. 2, M., 1956; him, [On the “economic factor”. Final edition], ibid.; him, Basic Questions of Marxism, ibid., vol. 3, M., 1957; Gramsci?., Prison Notebooks, Fif. proizv., vol. 3, M., 1959, p. 58–59, 69–72; Labriola?., Historical materialism, P., 1922; Blagoev D., Dialectical materialism and theory of knowledge, Izbr. proizv., vol. 2, S., 1951; Glerman G. E., Basis and superstructure in Soviet society, M., 1954; Cornforth M., Dialectical materialism, M., 1956, p. 211–40, 266–77; Kammari M.D., What is the basis and superstructure of society. M., 1957; For the creative study and development of the theory of base and superstructure, "Communist", 1957, No. 4; Novozhilova L.I., Some features of the emergence of the socialist basis, "Uch. Zap. Leningrad State University", 1958, No. 264. Ser. Philosophical Sciences, vol. 15; Pilipenko N.V., Development and strengthening of the basis and superstructure of socialist society during the gradual transition from socialism to communism, "Uch. zap. Yaroslavl Pedagogical Institute", 1959, vol. 19; Slavov P., By any means ask for theory for base and superstructure, “Philosophskata misal”. S., 1959, No. 3; Chkhikvadze V.M. and Zivs S.L., Against modern reformism and revisionism in the question of the state, M., 1959; Fundamentals of Marxist philosophy, M., 1959, p. 431–48; Konstantinov F.V., Fedoseev P.N., To the study of the foundations of Marxist-Leninist philosophy, “Questions of Philosophy”, 1960, No. 2, p. 35–36, 39–40; Desanti J.-T., Sur quelques probl?mes concernant la base et la superstructure, "Cahiers du communisme", P., 1955, No. 3; Kuczynski J., Basis und ?berbau beim ?bergang von einer zur anderen Klassengesellschaft, "Z. Geschichtswiss.", V., 1955, ?. 1, his, ?ber einige Probleme des historischen Materialismus, dargestellt vornehmlich an Beispielen aus der deutschen Geschichte, V., 1956; Bako? ?., ? ot?zkam nadstavby a nadstavbovosti umenia, "Predvoj", Brat., 1958, p. 50. F. Konstantinov. Moscow.

from Greek basis - basis) - English. substructure and superstructure; German Basis und Uberbau. According to K. Marx, there are two components of society.-Econ. formations: the basis includes the totality of production relations that make up the economy. structure (economic system) of society at a given stage of its development, the Crimea corresponds to a functionally associated institutional-ideological superstructure (including the totality of those forms of societies, consciousness, political, legal and other institutions, which are generated by the basis and contribute to its strengthening).

Excellent definition

Incomplete definition ↓

BASIS AND SUPERSTRUCTURE

BASE AND SUPERSTRUCTURE) These terms were used by Marxist sociologists as part of the analysis of the relationship between the economy (base) and other social forms(add-on). An economy in this view consists of three elements: the worker, the means of production (which include both the materials used and the means by which the work is done), and the one who appropriates the product. Any economy is characterized by the presence of these three elements, and the difference between one type of economy and another lies in the way in which these elements are combined. There are two types of relationships that can be established between elements - possession relations (possession) and property relations (property). Ownership refers to the relationship between the worker and the means of production: either the worker owns, controls and manages the means of production, or he does not. Within the framework of property relations, the non-working element has ownership of either the means of production, or labor, or both - therefore, he can appropriate the product. The superstructure is usually understood as a residual category, covering institutions such as the state, the family and the dominant forms of ideology in society. The strength of the Marxist position rests on the proposition that the nature of the superstructure is determined by the nature of the base: as the base changes, so does the superstructure. From this point of view, it is assumed that the difference between, for example, the political structure of feudalism and the political structure of capitalism is based on the difference between the two corresponding forms of economics. The base and superstructure model has become the basis of many studies, from the interpretation of the 18th century novel. before studying family structure in modern society. These studies mainly took the form of class analysis, which means viewing the relations of production within the framework as relations between social classes (for example, between workers and capitalists). The position that the base determines the superstructure indicates that the nature of the latter - literature, art, politics or family structure - is determined mainly by the economic interests of the dominant social class. The use of the base-superstructure metaphor can be a fruitful analytical tool, but it is highly controversial both within and outside Marxism. One point of contention is the definition of industrial relations. The fact that these relations are partly property relations indicates the basic role of legal definitions represented by this model as superstructural ones. Thus, the analytical division into basis and superstructure is fraught with certain difficulties. IN Lately Researchers' attention focused on developing a concept of industrial relations in which they would not be defined in legal terms. However, the position that the basis determines the superstructure still remains a “bone of contention.” A number of critics argue that the base-superstructure model leads to economic determinism, although in fact few proponents of this model take this kind of deterministic view. For example, Marx and Engels never adhered to the doctrine of determinism. Firstly, they believed that superstructure elements could be relatively autonomous in relation to the base and have their own laws of development. Secondly, they argued that the superstructure interacts with or influences the base. Modern Marxists move even further away from economic determinism, declaring that superstructure elements should be considered as conditions for the existence of the base. This idea is believed to be associated with the rejection of the primacy of the economy and giving all institutions of society equal causal significance. It has also been argued that the relationship between base and superstructure is functional. See also: Althusser; Capital functions; Marxist sociology; Mode of production; Labor theory cost. Lit.: Cohen, G.A. (1978)