Basis and superstructure in philosophy. Economic basis

BASIS AND SUPERSTRUCTURE

categories of historical materialism that characterize the structure of society.-economic. formations and qualities. the identity of its constituent societies. relations, the process of their dialectic. interactions. According to the definition of K. Marx, “the totality ... of production relations constitutes the economic structure of society, the basis on which the legal and political rises and to which certain forms public consciousness» (Marx K. and Engels F., Works, t. 13, with. 6-7) . V. I. Lenin emphasized that main materialistic idea. understanding of history “consisted in the fact that they are divided into material and ideological. The latter are only a superstructure over the former, which are formed in addition to the will and consciousness of man, as (result) a form of human activity aimed at maintaining its existence” (PSS, t. 1, with. 149) . Unlike material, ideological societies, relations depend on the consciousness of people, their formation is mediated by societies. consciousness. Both of these relationships have complex structure. Material relations that make up societies. produces a form of development. forces are productions. relations arising in the process of production, exchange and distribution of material goods. superstructure (N.) as a whole includes ideological. (political, legal and others) relations, related views, theories, ideas, illusions - i.e. ideology and psychology of various social groups or society as a whole, as well as corresponding. organizations and institutions - political. parties, societies organizations and t. d.

Categories B. and n. in the most general form reveal the determinations of societies. phenomena and relationships. Basis (B.) defines N., its features, structure, i.e. II. It is not constructed arbitrarily, but in accordance with its BN expresses the subjective side of societies. life, although in relation to otd. individual or social group N.'s structures are objective. Together B. and n. characterize the specific appearance of certain cases. social-economic formations. B., being an economical form of production, simultaneously acts as superstructural forms and relations. It constitutes, as it were, “economical skeleton" society. formation, which, with the help of N., is clothed in "flesh and blood." At the same time, B. should be understood only as a set of dominant industries. relations, because to characterize the society.-economic. formation, its difference from other formations is important qualities. certainty of the dominant type of production. relations, its dominance within the given formation.

The classics of Marxism-Leninism have repeatedly emphasized that in the history of specific societies there is practically no pure economics without a greater or lesser “admixture” of relations inherited from past epochs or emerging new relations characteristic of the next, higher society-economic. formations.

Therefore, highlighting the dominant industries. relations, as if distracted from the characteristics of a particular country, its specific stage of development, special historical. and cultural traditions, from a particular variety of productions. relations that exist alongside and simultaneously with the dominant type. However, in a specific analysis society, in order to obtain a more complete and accurate picture of the level of its development and maturity, it is necessary to consider not only the dominant type of production. relations and the phenomena of N. corresponding to it, but also the whole set various types productions. relations that make up the economic. structure of this society.

Outside the concrete historical approach, without taking into account all types of production. relationship would be impossible. e.g., a detailed multi-structural economy of Russia in the transition period, the Crimea allowed V. I. Lenin to develop a scientifically based program for building socialism, creating its B. and n. AT modern era, the analysis of a mixed economy is very relevant for developing countries with their complex interweaving modern and archaic. economical and social structures.

Reflecting common cause and effect. connections that exist in societies, relationships, B. and n. serve at the same time methodological. basis for more concrete analysis regularities and mechanism of functioning of the totality of societies. relations.

N. performs the most important social functions in society. Dominant N. expresses and consolidates the economic. property relations of the society. But in each class antagonistic. in society, there are N., performing in relation to the B. that gave birth to them will destroy. functions that contribute to the birth of a new B. In fulfilling its social functions, N. is always an active force that has a reverse effect on B. Therefore, it would be a simplification and vulgarization of the historical. materialism consider B. and n. as unidirectional. In fact, there is a dialectic between them. and interdependence. N., once having arisen, begins to have an opposite effect on B., and consequently, on everything, being included in the development of society as relatively independent. a factor that has its own specific. laws of genesis, functioning and development.

Marx, K. and EngelsF., Works, t. 13, with. 6-7; t. 20, with. 26; t. 37, with. 111; t. 39, with. 356; Lenin V. I., PSS, vol. 1, p. 149; Constitution (The basic Law) Union of Owls. Socialist Republics, M., 1977.

L. F. Il'ichev.

Philosophical encyclopedic dictionary. - M.: Soviet Encyclopedia. Ch. editors: L. F. Ilyichev, P. N. Fedoseev, S. M. Kovalev, V. G. Panov. 1983 .

BASIS AND SUPERSTRUCTURE

(from the Greek βάσις - ) - historical materialism, the Marxist understanding of society. The great historical merit of Marx and Engels consisted in the fact that they singled out material relations as the real basis, the foundation of society, from the totality of social relations that make up society, and ideological public relations considered as a superstructure that grows on a given 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 on the former" (Soch., 4th ed., vol. 1, p. 134).

Marx gave the classical formulation of the basis and superstructure and their relationship in the famous preface to the book "On the Critique of Political Economy" (1859). Marx wrote in this preface: social production In their lives, people enter into certain, necessary relationships that do not depend on their will - that correspond to a certain stage in the 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" (K. Marx and F. Engels, Soch., 2nd ed., vol. 13, p. 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 under the superstructure, Marx understands, first of all, law, as well as such forms of social consciousness as religion, art, political and legal forms of consciousness. Idealists of all trends see the determining 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, social phenomena in this way means to put them on their heads, to distort their real connection.

Historical 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 be engaged in production. The production of material goods necessary for life, and the production of tools is the original historical, underlying the transformation of the herd of human-like ancestors of ours into human society, at the basis of all social, historical life of people. The production of material goods has always worn and wears the public. Being engaged in the production of material goods, people become in a certain relationship not only to nature, but also to each other. These relations of people in the process of production - economic or industrial relations - develop independently of the will of people. Their character is always determined by the state of the material productive forces.

The totality 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 it is they that determine the character, nature of the state (political superstructure), law (or legal superstructure), public views of people, ideas: moral, religious , philosophical, artistic, political and institutions corresponding to these views.

The characteristic features of the economic basis are that, firstly, it has a historically changing character. A change in the basis is caused and conditioned by a change in the nature of the productive forces of society. The historically determined basis determines the character, the type of social superstructure. A revolution in the economic system (that is, the basis) of a given society causes a revolution in the entire social superstructure. Describing this process, Marx writes in the above-mentioned preface to the Critique of Political Economy:

“At a certain stage of their development, material societies come into contact with the existing production relations, or – which is only the legal expression of the latter – with the property relations within which they have hitherto developed. From the forms of development of the productive forces, these relations turn into their fetters. social revolution. With a change in the economic basis, a revolution takes place more or less rapidly in the entire vast superstructure. When considering such revolutions, it is always necessary to distinguish, with natural scientific accuracy, a revolution in the economic conditions of production from legal, political, religious, artistic or philosophical, in short - from ideological forms in which people are aware of this conflict and fight for its resolution" (ibid., p. 7).

The social superstructure is called "superstructure" because it is called into being and conditioned by the basis. Each historically defined superstructure has its own basis. What is the basis - such is the superstructure of this society. Like the basis, it also has a historical character. The capitalist basis, its nature, character also corresponds to a certain, conditioned, superstructure: the bourgeois state, bourgeois law, in a society of bourgeois political, legal, religious, moral, philosophical, artistic views.

In a socialist society, its economic basis corresponds to the socialist superstructure, that is, the socialist state, socialist law, socialist, political, legal, moral, philosophical and artistic views, the dominance of socialist ideology as a whole.

The superstructure in a class society naturally has a class character. This means that the state public ideas, which make up the superstructure, have a class character.

Due to the antagonistic nature of the basis of such formations as feudalism, capitalism, this one is also reflected in the superstructure itself. Thus, for example, in capitalist society its basis is based on the exploitation of the proletariat by the bourgeoisie, on the antagonism of these two classes. In the field of the ideological superstructure of capitalist society, this comes into existence along with the bourgeois ideology of the socialist ideology of the working class that dominates in this society; she, as a theory 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, an 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 corresponding institutions do not appear to them as an automatic basis of the economy. Economics creates nothing of itself, no philosophical, religious, moral, aesthetic or political ideas. Ideas and institutions (as well as economic relations themselves) are created by people "But they create these social ideas not arbitrarily, but in accordance with the existing social, primarily economic, conditions (i.e., the basis) and social laws. These people are often dominated by past generations. A break with these traditions occurs among the advanced classes under the influence of social, primarily economic, conditions and against orech. 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 directly on their emergence and change are influenced by previous ideas, as well as ideological and political classes, parties.

Between the base and the superstructure there is a relationship not only of cause and effect. Their relationship is dialectical. Once having arisen on a certain basis, the superstructure begins to have a reverse effect on the basis that gave rise to it and on society as a whole. In this interaction, the decisive role, of course, is played by the basis. The reverse effect of the superstructure has a different character. The progressive superstructure contributes to its basis and to the given society to take shape, strengthen and develop. The reactionary superstructure guards the inviolability of its reactionary basis and hinders the development of the productive forces. In famous historical periods there are also such facts that this superstructure still contributes to the development of society in one respect, some of its aspects and inhibits the development of its other elements, aspects, processes. F. Engels, characterizing the role of the state as a political superstructure, writes: "The reverse state power on economic development can be of three kinds. It can act in the same direction - then things go faster; she can act against economic development, – then in each big people it crashes after a certain interval of time; or it may block economic development in certain directions and push it forward in other directions. This one comes down, after all, to one of the previous ones. But it is clear that in the second and third cases, the political can cause the greatest harm to economic development and can give rise to a waste of strength and material in large quantities" (Marx K. and Engels F., Selected Letters, 1953, pp. 427-28).

The superstructure thus always plays an active role in society. The bourgeois state and law, bourgeois social ideas defend bourgeois society and its foundations. Bourgeois political and legal ideas and institutions, the entire bourgeois superstructure is a powerful bourgeoisie in the class struggle against the oppressed classes. The revolutionary ideas and institutions of the working class (the party, the trade unions) that oppose the ideas and institutions prevailing in bourgeois society are directed against the bourgeois basis and the ruling bourgeois ideas and institutions.

The conditions for the emergence of a socialist basis and a socialist superstructure are unique, specific, just as specific is the emergence of a socialist society in comparison with capitalism. The economic basis of socialism does not and cannot arise in the depths of capitalism. Necessary conditions the emergence of a socialist basis are:

1) modern productive forces and their conflict with capitalist production relations;

The socialist superstructure in the form of a proletarian state and law, Marxist-Leninist socialist ideas helps to take shape and strengthen its socialist basis. The socialist superstructure defends its basis and promotes its all-round development in every possible way.

Despite some specificity in the emergence of the socialist base and the socialist superstructure, the conditionality of the latter to the former persists even here. The worker, the bearer of socialist production relations, is the economy of capitalism. His ideas, views, arise as an expression of his position in the capitalist. society and as a result of conflict in the capitalist mode of production. Without the working class, the socialist and dictatorship of the proletariat could not arise. Further.

The capitalist superstructure, like the capitalist base, has long since become reactionary. They are the force holding back the public. Bourgeois ideas justify and defend economic and political oppression, national and racial inequality and enslavement, justify and sanctify imperialist wars. In the capitalist basis and superstructure, the socialist basis and the socialist superstructure are progressive, revolutionary. They are driving force progressive development of society. Following the victory of the socialist mode of production in a socialist society, they are approved, they begin to operate (along with the general laws inherent in all formations) their specific ones. development characterizing new nature and the new nature of the movement of this society. Accordingly, here, under socialism, the role of the political and ideological. add-ons. In the capitalist society, the economy and its laws act spontaneously. Under socialism, the role Soviet state, Communist Party, the role of Marxist-Leninist theory and the socialist masses - the socialist social superstructure as a whole, play a great mobilizing, organizing, guiding role.

Spontaneous development is replaced by conscious development. From the realm of blind necessity is carried into the realm of freedom. The socialist superstructure changes and develops following the development and in accordance with the development of the socialist basis. Thus, in the course of social development certain functions of the socialist state die out (for example, the suppression of the exploiters), and organizational-economic, cultural-educational functions, as well as the function of defending the socialist homeland from imperialist forces, are developed. The socialist superstructure is an active and powerful tool for building communist society.

During the period of extensive construction of communism, the role of the Communist Party, communist consciousness, the role of persuasion, the role of the moral, ideological principle in the entire public life. The birthmarks, the consciousness of the old society, which still persist under the conditions of socialist society, hinder, hinder the development of society and the building of communism. Therefore, overcoming the remnants of capitalism in people's minds is the most important condition for the construction of communism, the formation of a new man. The higher the communist people, the more successful will be the building of a communist society.

On the question of the basis in Marxist literature, incorrect views were expressed, identifying the basis with the mode of production. But these are somewhat different categories that do not coincide with each other. On the question of the superstructure, JV Stalin's work Marxism and Problems of Linguistics (1950) put forward the view that, unlike language, the superstructure does not live long, only one epoch. It is true that the superstructure of society as a whole lives for one epoch. superstructure slave society collapsed along with the slaveholding basis. 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 the whole of ideological phenomena, such as religion or its individual forms: Christianity, Judaism, Mohammedanism - due to a number of historical conditions outliving their era. Christianity originated in the era of slavery, existed in the era of feudalism, capitalism, though somewhat modified. But this did not stop religion and its indicated forms from being part of the corresponding superstructures. Due to traditions, tendencies of public consciousness lagging behind social life, and also due to certain common features common to all antagonistic formations, some 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 backwardness of consciousness, are preserved in subsequent social formations with their new basis. The great classical art, the art of Aeschylus, Sophocles, Euripides, Raphael, Leonardo da Vinci, Michelangelo, Shakespeare, Goethe, Pushkin, Glinka, Repin, Tchaikovsky and other coryphaeuses survives for centuries and is preserved by peoples, progressive forces. During the transition from one social formation to, respectively, when one basis and superstructure are replaced by another basis and superstructure, only the reactionary, obsolete is destroyed, liquidated by the 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 the attribution of social phenomena to "superstructural" and "non-superstructural", put forward by I. V. Stalin, as we see, is incorrect, it contradicts historical facts.

The concept of "B." and "N." have a deep methodological arming the researcher of societies. materialistic life. understanding of societies. phenomena, understanding the need to bring the analysis of ideological. phenomena in society to their material foundation, the basis where the source and their origin and development are rooted.

Lit.: Marx K. and Engels F., German ideology, Soch., 2nd ed., vol. 3, M., 1956; Marx K., [Letter] P. V. Annenkov 28 Dec. 1846, in the book: Marx K. and Engels F., Izbr. Prod., vol. 2, 1955; Engels F., Ludwig Feuerbach and the End of Classical German Philosophy, ibid.; his own, [Letter] to K. Schmidt 5 Aug. 1890, ibid.; his, [Letter] to F. Mehring July 14, 1893, ibid.; his own, [Letter] to G. Starkenburg 25 Jan. 1894, ibid.; VI Lenin, What are "friends of the people" and how do they fight against the Social Democrats?, Soch., 4th ed., vol. 1; him, the Revolution teaches, ibid., vol. 9; his, Three sources and three components of Marxism, ibid., v. 19; his, State and Revolution, ibid., vol. 25; his, On the State, ibid., vol. 29; Plekhanov G.V., On the development of a monistic view of history, Izbr. philosophical works, vol. 1, M., 1956; his own, Materialist History, ibid., vol. 2, M., 1956; his same, [about " economic factor". Final edition], ibid; his own, Basic Questions of Marxism, ibid., vol. 3, M., 1957; Gramsci A., Prison Notebooks, Selected Prod., vol. 3, M., 1959, p. 58–59, 69–72; Labriola A., Historical materialism, P., 1922; Blagoev D., Dialectical materialism and knowledge, Selected works, vol. 2, S., 1951; Glezerman G. E. , Basis and superstructure in Soviet society, M., 1954; Cornforth, M., Dialectical materialism, M., 1956, pp. 211–40, 266–77; Kammari, M. D., What is the basis and superstructure of society. M. , 1957; For creative study and development of the theory of the basis and superstructure, "Communist", 1957, No 4; Novozhilova L. I., Some features of the emergence of the socialist basis, "Uch. app. Leningrad State University", 1958, No 264. Ser. Philosophical Sciences, issue 15; Pilipenko N.V., Development and strengthening of the basis and superstructure of a socialist society during the gradual transition from socialism to communism, "Uch. app. Yaroslavl. ped. in-ta", 1959, issue 19; Slavov P., For some reason, ask for a theorist for the base and superstructure, "Philosophical Misl". 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, pp. 431–48; Konstantinov F. V., Fedoseev P. N., To the Study of the Foundations of Marxist-Leninist Philosophy, "Q. Philosophy", 1960, No 2, pp. 35–36, 39–40; Desanti J.-T., Sur quelques problèmes concernant la base et la superstructure, "Cahiers du communisme", P., 1955, No 3; Kuczynski J., Basis und Überbau beim Übergang von einer zur anderen Klassengesellschaft, "Z. Geschichtswiss.", V., 1955, Η. 1, his own, Über einige Probleme des historischen Materialismus, dargestellt vornehmlich an Beispielen aus der deutschen Geschichte, V., 1956; Bakoš Μ., Κ otázkam nadstavby a nadstavbovosti umenia, "Predvoj ", Brat., 1958, p. 50.

F. Konstantinov. Moscow.

Philosophical Encyclopedia. In 5 volumes - M .: Soviet Encyclopedia. Edited by F. V. Konstantinov. 1960-1970 .

BASIS AND SUPERSTRUCTURE

BASIS AND - the concepts of the Marxist doctrine of society, denoting the primary and secondary structure social formations (see Formations public) and corresponding concrete societies.

The basis of formation is a set of economic, i.e., social production relations of a certain historical type; totality economic relations all its social structures (see Productive forces and relations of production). The superstructure is a set of social, primarily political and legal, relations and forms of social consciousness. There are two parts of the superstructure: political-legal and ideological, representing philosophical, sociological, political, legal, ethical, religious and other teachings. In the spiritual life of society, such teachings are endowed with an ideological status, that is, they directly participate in the formation of ideological relations and their institutional forms - the legal system, state and public institutions and organizations, etc. In the course of interaction, the basis and superstructure - cause and effect - change places . The basis determines the superstructure, and the latter not only reflects and consolidates the basis, but also creates (or slows down) regulatory legal - (from the Greek. basis basis) English. substructure and superstructure; German Basis and Uberbau. According to K. Marx, there are two constituent parts of societies. economy formations: the basis includes a set of production relations that make up the economy. structure (econ. system) ... Encyclopedia of Sociology

The concepts of historical materialism, denoting the social relations of a historically defined society as complete system, in which material relations represent its real basis, the foundation of society, and political and ... ... Great Soviet Encyclopedia

BASIS AND SUPERSTRUCTURE- (basis and superstructure) Marx's metaphor for expressing the connection between the economy as a basis with a decisive influence on society (basis) and its other components (superstructure). Thus, the assumption is that at each stage ... ... Big explanatory sociological dictionary

BASIS AND SUPERSTRUCTURE- Marx's metaphor for expressing the connection between the economy as a basis with a determining influence on society (base) and its other components (superstructure). Thus, the assumption is that at every stage of economic development ... ... Eurasian wisdom from A to Z. Explanatory dictionary

BASIS AND SUPERSTRUCTURE- (BASE AND SUPERSTRUCTURE) These terms were used by Marxist sociologists in the analysis of the relationship between the economy (base) and other social forms (superstructure). The economy from this point of view consists of three elements: ... ... sociological dictionary

BASIS AND SUPERSTRUCTURE- (from Greek basis basis) eng. substructure and superstructure; German Basis and Uberbau. According to K. Marx, there are two constituent parts of societies. economy formations: the basis includes a set of production relations that make up the economy. structure (econ. system) ... Explanatory Dictionary of Sociology

BASIS and SUPERSTRUCTURE- (Greek basis basis) the basic concepts of the Marxist version of sociology, characterizing the structure of the socio-economic formation. With the help of these concepts, within the boundaries of historical materialism, an attempt was made to establish ... ... Sociology: Encyclopedia

BASIS AND SUPERSTRUCTURE- the main categories of Marxism; the basis of the economic structure of society, the system of production relations corresponding to a certain level of development of material productive forces. Superstructure is a system of ideas and folding in accordance with ... ... Thematic philosophical dictionary

Basis and superstructure- concepts developed within the framework of Marxist-Leninist philosophy. The basis is the same as production relations (i.e., the relations that people enter into in the process of their material production activity), while the basis, as a kind of ... ... Dictionary-reference book on philosophy for students of medical, pediatric and dental faculties Read more electronic book

Basis and superstructure

There are two main components in the socio-economic formation - the basis and the superstructure. Basis - the economy of society, the components of which are the productive forces and production relations. Superstructure - the state, political, public institutions. Changes in the economic basis lead to the transition from one socio-economic formation to another.

According to the social statics of K. Marx, the basis of society is entirely economic. It represents the dialectical unity of productive forces and production relations.

The superstructure includes ideology, culture, art, education, science, politics, religion, family.

The productive forces are those forces by which society influences nature and changes it. In addition, the productive forces can be characterized as one of the aspects of the development of the social individual.

The productive forces express man's relationship to nature, his ability to creatively use its wealth for personal and social interests. The productive forces exist and function only within social production. The level of development of production forces is manifested in the degree of human knowledge of the laws of nature and their use in production to achieve the goals.

Each mode of production is based on a certain material and technical basis and the type of labor corresponding to this basis. History knows three types of labor: manual, machine, automated. These types of labor are historically consistent and quite certain types societies: pre-industrial, industrial, post-industrial (information).

The concept of productive forces and productive relations

productive forces

In the process of production, people interact with nature and with each other. These two kinds of relations constitute inseparably related parties any particular mode of production, which finds its expression in the existence of productive forces and production relations. The mode of production is defined as a contradictory unity of productive forces and production relations. The productive forces constitute the content of the mode of production, and the relations of production form its form.

The productive forces include all factors that determine the level of labor productivity: these are all subjective (personal) and material (material) elements of the labor process, as well as their interaction in the production of material goods. These include, first of all, a person, as the main productive force with his labor experience, level of education and qualifications, as well as means of labor and objects of labor. The productive forces also include science in its technological application, the socialization of production through the division of labor, cooperation, specialization, as well as the organization and management of production arising from them. Natural wealth and natural forces only become productive forces when, thanks to human labor, they are elements of social production.

Thus, the productive forces cover the whole complex of various, interdependent and constantly developing elements that perform a specific function in the production process.

The basis of any system of productive forces is the human labor force, the object of labor and the means of labor.

Labor power is the totality of physical and spiritual abilities possessed by the organism, the living personality of a person, and which are put into action by him whenever he produces any use values (objects capable of satisfying certain needs). The use of labor force as a conscious and purposeful activity is called labor. It can act only in interaction with the means of labor and objects of labor. The latter, therefore, become productive forces only when they are embraced by human labour.

Production relations are organizational forms, primarily the ownership of the means of production.

Production relations (property relations) are not entirely material. Ownership relations are partially legal relations. The phenomenon of property is hardly possible if people do not implicitly possess the concept of property. So, if people do not have the concept of politeness, then tipping your hat does not mean greeting an acquaintance. In the same way, taking someone's bike does not mean stealing it if people do not have, among other things, the concept of ownership. We cannot separate understanding as a component of the superstructure from the basis: without a certain understanding and a certain motivation, there is no economy. Consequently, the dialectical whole is more fundamental than the rigid division into a material basis and a passive superstructure.

We have already said that Marx considered the basis, the economy, as the decisive driving force of history. Let us express this idea more precisely. The real driving force is the productive forces. But the interaction of man and nature, which is mediated by productive forces, occurs within a certain organizational form(forms of ownership). Up to a certain point, the productive forces develop freely, or at least without resistance, within the existing production relations. But sooner or later the relations of production begin to slow down the further growth of the productive forces. As a result, tension arises between them: the prevailing property relations prevent further development productive forces. The changes that have arisen in the productive forces urgently require new and more appropriate relations of production. There is a revolution. After the establishment of new relations of production, the productive forces develop until these relations of production again begin to limit them. A new revolution is taking place.

In other words, the productive forces are developing. Conflicts arise between them and the prevailing production relations. Tension is eliminated by the emergence of new and better industrial relations.

formational marx class history

Requisites

To help students of Marxist-Leninist philosophy

Historical materialism believes that the basis of people's social life is the conditions of the material life of society, and the main driving force of social development is the method of production of material goods, as a unity of the embodiment of productive forces and production relations.

The mode of production of material goods, or the mode of production of means of subsistence, determines the nature of a particular socio-economic formation. And the socio-economic formation is a concrete embodiment of the basis and superstructure with this method production. This means that the basis and superstructure together give socially economic formation, and the nature of the basis, through the basis and superstructures, is ultimately determined by the mode of production.

This shows that the doctrine of the basis and superstructure belongs to the fundamental questions of historical materialism.

In the concept of the economic basis of society, the classics of Marxism-Leninism include the economic relations of people as a set of production relations, that is, relations between people in the process of production, distribution and exchange.

V. I. Lenin pointed out that K. Marx and F. Engels, having for the first time singled out economic relations - production relations from the totality of social relations, as the main, initial, determining all other social relations between people, thereby put an end to chaos and arbitrariness in views on society, discovered the true laws of its development.

Comrade Stalin, in his work On Dialectical and Historical Materialism, characterizing the essence of historical materialism, cites an extract from Marx's Preface to the Critique of Political Economy, where Marx brilliantly defines the concept of an economic basis.

“In the social production of their lives,” writes K. Marx, “people enter into certain, necessary, relations independent of their will - relations of production that correspond to a certain stage in the 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 ”(K. Marx and F. Engels, Selected works, vol. I, p. 322. Ed. 1948).

The great luminary of Marxist-Leninist science JV Stalin, concretizing and developing the teaching of Marx, Engels, Lenin on the basis, in his work "On Marxism in Linguistics" gives a deep and comprehensive definition. “The basis,” writes Comrade Stalin, “is the economic structure of society on this stage its development." (Marxism and questions of linguistics, p. 5).

The basis of production relations, and hence the basis of the economic basis, are property relations or property relations, and above all, and mainly, the relationship of people to the means of production. Comrade Stalin says that the state of production relations answers the question of who owns the means of production - at the disposal of the whole society, or at the disposal of individuals, groups, classes who use them to exploit other individuals, groups, classes.

This or that type of production relations determines the nature of the economic basis. History knows five main types of production relations, and hence five bases: primitive communal, slaveholding, feudal, capitalist, socialist. And this means that the basis expresses social structure society, the social relations of a given society.

In a society that is divided into hostile classes, where the means of production belong to individuals (and not to society as a whole), where there is exploitation of man by man, in such a society social relations, that is, relations between the exploiting classes and the exploited, are relations of hostility. irreconcilable (antagonistic), relations of cruel class struggle, which pervades all social life. So it was under the slaveholding and feudal basis, so it was and so it is under the capitalist basis.

The situation is different with social relations in a socialist society, in a society that has no hostile classes, where the means of production belong to the whole society, where the exploitation of man by man has been eliminated - in such a society, relations between people act as relations of comradely cooperation and socialist mutual assistance of workers free from exploitation. (workers, peasants and intellectuals).

The production relations of people, that is, the relations into which people enter in the process of production, constitute one side of production. The other side of production is the productive forces. Production relations are a form of development of the productive forces. The development and change of productive forces entails the development and change of production relations. One of the features of the productive forces is that they are always in a state of motion and development, and the relations of production, being a form of development of the productive forces, cannot lag behind their development for a long time, for the lag of production relations behind the productive forces means a conflict between them, a violation of unity of production, and this leads to the destruction of production, to the destruction of the productive forces.

The replacement of the old basis by a new one takes place in a violent, revolutionary way, that is, by destroying the old production relations and replacing them with new production relations.

Thus, the social revolution is called upon to resolve the contradictions that have arisen between the productive forces and the production relations within which the productive forces develop. Slave revolutions destroyed the slave-owning production relations, which became a brake on the development of productive forces. Peasant revolutions destroyed feudal relations of production. The proletarian revolution is called upon to destroy bourgeois production relations and to bring production relations into full and permanent conformity with the character of the productive forces.

A classic example of the solution of the problems of the proletarian revolution is the Great October Socialist Revolution in Russia, which destroyed bourgeois production relations. The socialist revolution, having destroyed the bourgeois relations of production, brought the relations of production into full and permanent correspondence with the forces of production, i.e., it established socialist relations of production.

This means that the social revolution is called upon to eliminate the old basis and create a new basis. But the destruction of the old basis does not mean the destruction of production in general. The revolution does not destroy the productive forces of society, but, on the contrary, it is carried out in order to create space for the development of the productive forces.

Therefore, the basis has a historically transient character.

The emerging new basis generates the corresponding superstructure. JV Stalin gives the following definition of the superstructure: "The superstructure is the political, legal, religious, artistic, philosophical views of society and their corresponding political, legal and other institutions." (Marxism and questions of linguistics, p. 5).

The superstructure, being generated by the basis, develops together with the basis and in accordance with the given basis; it is liquidated together with liquidation of the given basis. Therefore, the superstructure, like the basis, has a historically transient character, it is the product of one epoch, during which the basis that gave birth to it lives and acts.

“Every basis,” writes I.V. Stalin, “has its own superstructure corresponding to it. The basis of the feudal system has its own superstructure, its own political, legal and other views and institutions corresponding to them; the capitalist basis has its own superstructure, the socialist one has its own. If the basis changes and is liquidated, then after it its superstructure changes and is liquidated, if a new basis is born, then after it the corresponding superstructure is born. (Marxism and questions of linguistics, pp. 5-6).

The superstructure performs a service role in relation to the basis. It is engendered by the basis in order to facilitate its victory in the struggle against the old basis, to facilitate the victory of the new progressive class over the old reactionary class. This means that the superstructure, by its nature, by its vocation, by its role in a class society, is a class phenomenon. The superstructure is designed to protect the class interests of the ruling class, to serve its class interests.

The superstructure of the slave-owning basis (state, law, religion, morality, art, philosophy) served and defended the class interests of the slave-owners, i.e., the slave-owning superstructure sought to affirm and defend the given (slave-owning) type of production relations, the given (slave-owning) basis. The superstructure of the feudal basis served the class interests of the feudal lords; bourgeois - capitalists.

The modern bourgeois superstructure is the reactionary force on which the rotten imperialist system rests. Bourgeois state, law aimed at suppressing revolutionary movement the proletariat and working masses, to pacify the recalcitrant. The totality of the ideological superstructure (religion, morality, art, philosophy, bourgeois parties) plays the role of a spiritual bridle, is a spiritual cudgel in the hands of the bourgeoisie. The ideological clerks of imperialism, including right-wing socialists, are striving to preserve and defend the outdated capitalist basis. All contemporary bourgeois ideology is called upon to justify the fascist domestic and foreign policy of US-British imperialism.

The socialist superstructure (the Soviet state, law, communist morality, art, Marxist-Leninist philosophy - dialectical and historical materialism) protects the interests of the working people, it helps to strengthen the socialist basis.

The socialist superstructure is an active force in Soviet society in the matter of bringing about the gradual transition from socialism to communism.

From what has been said, it is clear that the basis and superstructure are in interaction with each other. The superstructure, being called to life by the base, then itself turns into an active force, pushing the base to victory over the old base, it becomes an accelerator of social development.

“The superstructure,” writes I. V. Stalin, “is generated by the basis, but this does not mean at all that it only reflects the basis, that it is passive, neutral, indifferent to the fate of its basis, to the fate of classes, to the nature of the system. On the contrary, having been born, it becomes the greatest active force, actively assists its basis in taking shape and strengthening, taking all measures to help the new system finish off and eliminate the old basis and the old classes. (Marxism and questions of linguistics, p. 7).

The base and its corresponding superstructure in pre-socialist socio-economic formations played a progressive role only as long as they contributed to the development of the productive forces. But as soon as the base becomes a brake on the development of the productive forces, it and its corresponding superstructure become reactionary social forces.

Further, it is necessary to note another feature of the add-on. The superstructure is not connected directly with production, with the production activity of people. The superstructure is connected with the production activity of people only indirectly, through the basis, through production relations. It is not connected with production directly because it is indifferent and irrelevant to the instruments and means of production. “Therefore, the superstructure reflects changes in the level of development of productive forces not immediately and not directly, but after changes in the basis, through the refraction of changes in production in changes in the basis.” (JV Stalin, Marxism and questions of linguistics, p. 11).

This means that the changed level of productive forces brings to life a new basis, and then the new basis brings to life a corresponding superstructure for it.

As the productive forces develop in the depths of the old social system, elements of a new mode of production are formed and mature, elements of new production relations are formed and mature, i.e. elements of a new basis are formed and mature, and, accordingly, new political, artistic, and philosophical views are formed with it. These views reflect the urgent historical need for the victory of a new basis, but they are not dominant. The dominant ideas are the ideas of the ruling class. And only after the victory of the new basis, new ideas become dominant.

Even more should be noted: not only the elements of a new type of production relations, but also the objective prerequisites for the possibility of the victory of new production relations (the new basis) under the dominance of the old basis give rise to new political, artistic, philosophical views that are designed to contribute to the development of these prerequisites, i.e. .they are designed to turn the opportunity into reality. The scientific ideology of the proletariat was born under the conditions of the undivided domination of the capitalist mode of production ( mid XIX century), when there was still no socialist basis, but then the need arose historically, as a historical necessity, for the victory of the socialist basis. The new social ideas of the proletariat organize and mobilize the working masses, unite them into a new political army for the forcible liquidation of the capitalist basis.

“New social ideas and theories,” writes I. V. Stalin, “because they actually arise because they are necessary for society, because without their organizing, mobilizing and transforming work it is impossible to resolve the urgent tasks of developing the material life of society. Having arisen on the basis of new tasks set by the development of the material life of society, new social ideas and theories make their way, become the property of the masses, mobilize them, organize them against the moribund forces of society and thus facilitate the overthrow of the moribund forces of society that hinder the development of material life. society." (Questions of Leninism, p. 547).

Prior to the publication of Comrade Stalin's work Marxism and Problems of Linguistics, incorrect, simplistic theories about the base and superstructure were widely circulated in the literature on philosophy.

The economic basis of society was identified with the mode of production of means of subsistence. The superstructure also included language and all forms of social consciousness.

Simplifying and vulgarizing the concept of base and superstructure, they simplified and vulgarized the concept of social life. The totality of social phenomena was reduced to a base and a superstructure.

Comrade Stalin showed that social life is richer and more multifaceted than just the base and superstructure, that it is impossible to artificially adjust the entire richness of social phenomena either to the base or to the superstructure.

The most essential and most typical social phenomena that characterize social life will be: mode of production, economic basis, superstructure, language, science.

The mode of production, economic basis and superstructure are discussed above. To what social phenomena should language and science be attributed? Language and science cannot be attributed either to the basis, or to the superstructure, or to the mode of production. These are independent social phenomena generated by the entire course of the development of human society.

N. Ya. Marr and his followers argued from anti-scientific, non-Marxist positions that language belongs to the superstructure and is a social class category.

Comrade Stalin showed that N. Ya. Marr, having introduced into linguistics an incorrect, non-Marxist formula about language as a superstructure and as a class social phenomenon, confused himself, confused linguistics as well.

The language cannot be classified as an add-on. The superstructure is generated by the basis, serves the basis, and it dies along with the death of this basis.

Language is generated not by this or that basis, but by the whole course of the history of society, the history of bases, the history of development and the perfection of the mode of production, over the course of many, many centuries. Language is born and develops along with the birth and development of the whole society, and it dies along with the death of society. Thus, language is not a product of one epoch, like a superstructure, but, on the contrary, language is a product of many epochs; it lives for a very long time, in the course of centuries, and serves society over a number of epochs.

The superstructure is created by one class (in antagonistic class societies) and serves this class, while language is created not by any one class, but by all classes of society, and it serves not this or that class, but all classes of society. This means that the language is not a class language, but a nationwide, nationwide language.

If the superstructure is connected with production indirectly, through the medium of the basis, then language is connected with the production activity of people directly, directly. The scope of service activities of the language is incomparably greater than the superstructures. Language serves all areas of human activity from production to basis, from basis to superstructure. It is a means of communication between people, a means by which people exchange thoughts among themselves and achieve mutual understanding. Moreover At the same time, language is an instrument of struggle and development of society. With the help of language, people establish collaboration in the struggle to conquer the forces of nature and adapt these forces for the benefit of mankind, establish communication in the process of production of means of life, build culture. And for the working masses, language is a means of combating their class enemies. Comrade Stalin, long before the victory of the October Revolution, wrote about language as a weapon of struggle:

“The interests of the Russian proletariat demand that the proletarians of the nationalities of Russia have the full right to use the language in which they can more freely receive an education, in which they can better fight enemies at meetings, in public, state and other institutions. This language is recognized native language". (JV Stalin, Soch., vol. 1, p. 44).

If N. Ya. Marr and the Marrovites identified language with the superstructure, then another group of vulgarizers of Marxism completely identified all forms of social consciousness with the superstructure, i.e., all forms of social consciousness were unconditionally included in the superstructure.

Science, for example, as a form of social consciousness, cannot be unconditionally included in the superstructure. natural sciences, and especially applied Science, are mainly related to production and not to the basis. humanitarian or social Sciences directly connected with the economic basis of society, they are generated by the basis of society and serve it, they are the ideology of a particular class. Thus, the social sciences, both by their nature and by their purpose, are class sciences, tendentious towards classes; they are an ideological weapon, a weapon in the hands of classes in the class struggle.

The natural sciences, on the other hand, are generated not by this or that basis, and not by this or that class, but by the needs of the entire social life of people, and above all, the needs of production, the needs of the development of the productive forces, the needs of conquering the forces of nature. V. I. Lenin said that the goal of science is to give a correct picture of the world, that is, to reveal the laws of nature for the purpose of their practical use.

Natural science, dealing with the laws of nature through technique and technology of production, is connected with the production activity of people, with the production of material goods. “... Science,” F. Engels points out, “depends on the state and needs of technology. If a society has a technical need, then it advances science more than a dozen universities. (K. Marx and F. Engels. Selected works, vol. II, p. 484. Ed. 1948). Therefore, by its nature and its purpose, natural science is not a superstructure. Scientific laws about nature, discovered by natural science and tested by practice, which have become a system of objective knowledge, serve various ways productions.

But natural science is not just a sum of discovered laws of nature, facts, etc., sorted into shelves and not connected with each other. On the contrary, every natural scientist analyzes, generalizes open laws nature, connects them with each other, connects the laws of his special field of study with the laws of related sciences. In the process of analysis, generalization, connection of specific laws of nature, scientists come to general theoretical conclusions, or to ideological conclusions. In addition, each naturalist is a representative of one or another public class, whether he wants it or not, but when he makes epistemological (epistemological) conclusions, he expresses the point of view of his class.

Thus, natural science is connected with philosophy, and natural scientists, being representatives of one class or another, force natural science, directly or indirectly, to participate in the ideological struggle of classes and parties, in the struggle of two camps in philosophy, materialism and idealism. This means that the general theoretical side of each science belongs to the superstructure.

The Marxist-Leninist doctrine of the basis and superstructure, raised to a higher level scientific understanding I. V. Stalin in his work “Marxism and questions of linguistics”, gave the Soviet people and their vanguard - the communist party, knowledge of the laws of construction and strengthening of the socialist base and socialist superstructure, and their role in communist construction.

The Marxist-Leninist doctrine of base and superstructure armed the working class and its vanguard - the communist and workers' parties of the people's democracies, China and other countries of the East, with knowledge of the laws of building a socialist base and a socialist superstructure.

The Marxist-Leninist doctrine of base and superstructure equips the world proletariat and its vanguard, the communist parties, with the knowledge of the laws of destruction of the old capitalist basis and the old capitalist superstructure and the creation of a new socialist basis and a new socialist superstructure.

Basis and superstructure. - “The basis is the economic structure of society at a given stage of its development. The superstructure is the political, legal, religious, artistic, philosophical views of society and their corresponding political, legal and other institutions. In the Marxist science of society, the question of base and superstructure is of great importance. A correct understanding of what constitutes the basis of society and what is its superstructure, what is the relationship between the basis and the superstructure, what is their connection with production, with the productive forces, makes it possible to reveal the objective pattern of the development of society and overcome subjectivism in the approach to the history of society.

Under the basis, Marxism understands the totality of people's production relations. Production relations, one or another type of production relations, are characterized by the form of ownership. The state of production relations reveals in whose hands they are (see) - at the disposal of the whole society or individuals, groups, classes that use these means of production to exploit other individuals, groups, classes. In the preface to the Critique of Political Economy, Marx pointed out that "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." The basis cannot be identified with production, nor can it be separated from production. Confusing the basis with production can lead to the wrong conclusion that the superstructure is determined directly by production, while in reality it is determined by it through the mediation of the economic basis.

The separation of the basis from production leads to idealism and creates an erroneous idea of the independence of production relations from the forces of production. Marxism-Leninism teaches that the mode of production is an inseparable unity of productive forces and production relations. The basis is not something permanent. Marxism teaches that the basis changes historically, being the economic structure of society at a given stage of its development. For example, the basis of socialist society is fundamentally different from the basis of the capitalist system. The basis of socialist society is characterized by the dominance of public ownership of the means of production and the absence of exploitation of man by man. The capitalist basis means the dominance of private capitalist ownership of the means of production and the exploitation of wage labor.

If the base serves society economically, then the superstructure serves society with political, legal, aesthetic and other ideas and creates appropriate political, legal and other institutions for society. One of the features of the superstructure is that it is not connected directly with production, with the productive forces. The productive forces directly determine the basis of society. The superstructure is connected with production only indirectly, through the medium of the economy, through the medium of the basis. Changes in the level of development of the productive forces are not reflected by the superstructure immediately and not directly, but after changes in the basis, through the refraction of the changes taking place in production into changes in the basis. This position of Marxism has great importance in the struggle against all kinds of vulgarizers who derive legal, aesthetic and other ideas directly from production and thereby distort the actual laws of the emergence and development of the superstructure, its role and significance in the life of society.

In his work, I. V. Stalin deeply revealed the relationship between the superstructure and the economic basis. First of all, the superstructure is closely dependent on the basis. “If the basis changes and is eliminated, then after it its superstructure changes and is liquidated; if a new basis is born, then after it the corresponding superstructure is born.” The history of society provides many examples of how the superstructure of society was rebuilt in connection with the liquidation of the old economic basis and the emergence of a new basis. It is this natural connection between the superstructure and the base that makes it possible to understand why in different historical eras there are different political, legal, aesthetic and other ideas. The superstructure does not exist for a relatively long time, it is the product of one epoch during which the given economic basis lives and operates. Being dependent on the basis, it is liquidated and disappears with the liquidation and disappearance of the given basis.

Growing up on a definite economic basis, the superstructure is not, however, as all sorts of vulgarizers think, passive, and the economic basis is by no means the only active force in the development of society. Among the vulgarizers who denied the active role of the superstructure were the "Economists" and the Mensheviks, with their preaching of the "theory of spontaneity," with their denial of the need for the dictatorship of the proletariat in order to build socialism. The vulgarizing idea of the passivity of the superstructure is also consciously used by contemporary right-wing socialists, who preach a theory hostile to Marxism. peaceful growth of capitalism into socialism without a revolutionary struggle, without overthrowing the power of the bourgeoisie. Marxism-Leninism smashed these opportunistic, counter-revolutionary "theories" aimed at preserving the obsolete reactionary order. Marxism needs to take into account huge role add-ons - political system, law, political, philosophical and other ideas - in the development and strengthening of the basis that gave rise to it.

It cannot be otherwise: the superstructure is created by the basis for this purpose, in order to help it take shape and strengthen itself. The superstructure in a class society has a class character, it cannot be indifferent to its basis, treat all classes equally, otherwise it will not be a superstructure. Having a serious impact on the basis, the superstructure accelerates or, conversely, slows down the development of society. Thus, the imperialist bourgeoisie uses its state to fight the proletarian revolution, holding back the progressive development of society. All means of political and ideological influence of the bourgeois state are put to use in order to blunt the political creation of the masses and make them an instrument of the policy of imperialism.

The political superstructure, therefore, plays an active reactionary role here. The proletariat, having won political power and using the objective law of the obligatory correspondence of production relations to character (see), destroys bourgeois private property, which hinders the development of productive forces, creates conditions for the transition of small peasant farming to the rails of a collective, socialist economy. Instead private property socialist public ownership of the means of production is established. Here we have a vivid example of the active revolutionary role of the political superstructure in the development of society, its economy and productive forces.

Under socialism, the role of the superstructure becomes especially significant. This is explained by the fact that, unlike capitalist society, where the development of the economy is based on spontaneous laws, in Soviet socialist society the national economy develops according to scientifically developed plans that reflect the objective economic laws of socialism and are in accordance with them. Never before in the history of mankind has the state performed economic, organizational, cultural and educational functions to such an extent as the Soviet state does. The powerful influencing role of the policy of the Communist Party and the Soviet state on the development of the economic basis lies in the fact that this policy is based on taking into account the objective economic laws of socialism and is structured in accordance with maturing historical needs.

Knowing the laws of social development, the Communist Party foresees in advance the main processes of economic development in the future and, accordingly, outlines the program of state activity, mobilizing the masses for the implementation of this program. Thus, considering the superstructure as dependent on the economic base, Marxism at the same time emphasizes with all its force the enormous active role of the superstructure in the development of the economic base. AT present period when the Soviet people, under the leadership of the Communist Party, are carrying out the grandiose tasks of a gradual transition from socialism to communism, important condition successful progress is further strengthening the Soviet state, the education of the working masses in the spirit of communism, Soviet patriotism, the strengthening of the entire ideological front, the struggle against the remnants of capitalism in the minds of people.

The Marxist-Leninist doctrine of the basis and superstructure of society is an effective guide in the struggle to destroy the capitalist system and build communism. If the bourgeois state, bourgeois law actively contribute to the preservation of the economic basis of capitalism, economic order operation and. oppression, then without the destruction of the power of the bourgeoisie, Marxism-Leninism teaches, the destruction of the capitalist system is also impossible, the social liberation of the working class and all working people is impossible, and, consequently, the construction of socialism is impossible. Only a socialist revolution, which destroys the dictatorship of the bourgeoisie and establishes the dictatorship of the proletariat, ensures the transition from capitalism to socialism, creates the conditions for building a socialist, and then a communist society - such is the conclusion that follows from the Marxist-Leninist theses on the basis and superstructure.

Page 1

Political superstructure, like the whole political process, is the result of the socio-economic forces that shape it. Its center is a set of power structures, primarily the state, together with a legal political ideology designed to justify and protect it.

The political superstructure does not exhaust the entire superstructure over the base. The structure of the superstructure includes a set of forms of social consciousness, ideology, politics and their corresponding political and other institutions of society.

political superstructure over new economy above monopoly capitalism (imperialism is monopoly capitalism) is the turn from democracy to political reaction. Free competition corresponds to democracy. Monopoly Compliant political reaction.

Considering further the area of the political superstructure, Marx and Engels specifically single out the question of the relation of the state and the right to property. Here, for the first time, they scientifically reveal the essence of the state in general and the essence of the bourgeois state in particular. The state, write Marx and Engels, is the form in which the individuals belonging to the ruling class exercise their common interests and in which all civil society (that is, economic relations) of a given epoch finds its concentrated expression. The bourgeois state is nothing but a form political organization which the bourgeois must inevitably accept in order, both outside and inside the country, to mutually guarantee their property and their interests. The German ideology has already shown that the emergence of the state is the result of the division of society into classes and that therefore, with the abolition of classes as a result of the communist revolution, the state itself will disappear.

On the issue of the relationship between the political superstructure and the basis, N.I. Bukharin proceeds from the Leninist position: politics is a concentrated expression of the economy (see: Lenin V.I. Poly.

The state as the main form of political superstructure is studied by legal and other sciences. Political economy considers the state as an effective economic force generated by the basis. At the same time, the study of the economic relations of people is possible only taking into account the impact of the state on the economic basis. Marx repeatedly pointed out that among the problems of political economy is the influence of the state on production relations.

The state as the main form of political superstructure is studied by legal and other sciences. Political economy considers the state as an effective economic force generated by the basis. At the same time, the study of the economic relations of people is possible only taking into account the impact of the state on the economic basis. Marx repeatedly pointed out that the range of problems of political economy included the influence of state relations of production.

The Republic is one of possible forms political superstructure over capitalist society and, moreover, the most democratic modern conditions. To say that the republic does not smile at imperialism is to say that there is a contradiction between imperialism and democracy.

great attention in the German ideology given political superstructure, and especially the relation of the state and law to property. Here, for the first time, the essence of the state in general and the bourgeois state in particular was revealed.

The state enters society as important element political superstructure, but part civil society is not.

Exploring imperialism, V. I. Lenin showed that the political superstructure over monopoly capitalism is a political reaction in all areas of internal and foreign policy; imperialism, Lenin pointed out, is the negation of democracy in general (see Works, 5th ed. Monopoly capitalism curtails and nullifies even the norms of formal bourgeois democracy; it establishes its own unlimited dictatorship. This is especially clearly seen in the example of the United States, where democratic organizations are being persecuted, terror against the working class and all progressive forces, political and racial discrimination.

This is the contradiction between the economic system and the political superstructure. The republic has the same contradiction with imperialism, deepened or aggravated by the fact that the replacement of free competition by monopoly makes the exercise of any political freedom even more difficult.

In doing so, we must bear in mind, comrades, that the role of the political superstructure in socialist society is truly enormous. Nowhere does the political superstructure play such a role as it does here. And its settlement, bringing it into line with today's possibilities of life, our today's tasks, is of decisive importance.

Change economic structure modern capitalism, different kind shifts in the political superstructure of capitalism are accompanied by new social phenomena.