[deleted]
I don’t quite get your question, but It’s not bullshit, I believe that the terms were first coined by Marx (if memory serves). The base superstucture model is just a model by which to view the world, in that it explains (to some degree) how sociocultural/economic and other phenomenon arise from the means and relations of production, which is definitely true to some extent. But no model is perfect and it’s not the only model. The world is pretty complex and people can and do take actions that defy this model.
Paragone@lemmy.world 5 months ago
that “superstructure” XOR “base” paradigm is insane.
Do any people always think like that??
Marx made a fundamental error, in all of his thinking: he presumed that communism’s meaning would be everybody-owning-everything, in universal fraternity.
ACTUAL communism expressed its essence in Brutalism: nobody owning anything, & authority-over-others being the “gold” that everybody was grubbing-after & fighting-over.
( there is a fundamental law in human behavior: the treatment a resource, or tool, gets, is the lowest-common-denominator of the ones who own it.
So, if 5 people own a tool or resource, & 1 couldn’t care less if it is butchered/broken, then the other-4’s care for that tool/resource don’t matter, the one who mistreats it because they don’t value it, defines the level-of-care that that tool/resource gets.
When EVERYBODY doesn’t care, because nobody is allowed to own their own things, then Brutalism becomes the result.
In architecture, in tractors, in aircraft, in everything.
For fine-cherishing to happen, the owners of the something have to have fine-cherishing for that something.
That, itself, falsifies communism.
The fact that YOUR own life is something that YOU alone can value sufficiently, YOU are the only someone who’s going to lose it, when death-process shatters your unconscious-mind … that itself means that you have to have necessary & sufficient experience with personal/private property while living, in order to have proper boundaries when dying, so you can concentrate on your dying-process, instead of just being a patsy who’s being distracted for social-process’s sake, e.g… )
Anyways, language can program perception.
Culture can program perception.
Western more-self-centered cultures are less likely to perceive background, in photos or videos, than are more communally-centered cultures ( Asian, was the studies that I’d read about ).
So, linguistic-programming ( I’m not necessarily talking about NLP, don’t even know what scope they claim ) can define one’s awareness, one’s culture, etc…
Therefore, it’d have to be basis, wouldn’t it?
So would ideology/axioms/presumptions/beliefs.
dividing things only into 2 categories, though…
No: it’s oversimplification.
Marx’s mistake is profound, & that mistake was because he ( probably unconsciously ) wouldn’t accept that communism could be anything opposite to his utopian-assumption.
Therefore, his utopian-assumption would have to be basis, & all the rigamarole he prescribed would have to be, in that scheme, “superstructure”, … from that 2-level view, wouldn’t it?
LMAO…
THERE’S A FEEDBACK-LOOP IN CULTURES, so labelling things “basis” & “superstructure” is already systematically ignoring the self-amplification or self-quenching of different aggregates-of-culture, among different individuals!
& then you also have the amplifying-different-harmonics among extraverts vs introverts…
among the different-kinds-of-motivations…
etc.
Interesting, though: I wonder if such fundamental-oversimplifications are characteristic of all such ideologies?
_ /\ _
Cowbee@lemmy.ml 5 months ago
Don’t know what you mean by the concept of base and superstructure being “insane.” It’s a general observation that the way we produce shapes our culture, which reinforces the way we produce.
You’re also fundamentally entirely wrong about communism. Communism isn’t when you have a bunch of tools in a pile and everyone can walk up to it and use it, then throw it back into the pile, or anything, it’s a fully collectively owned and planned industrial economy. The tragedy of the commons doesn’t apply to, say, the post office, as an example.