Yesterday I had argument with Cowbee about this here. This seems like hijack of word “base” to support their propaganda like many others Words Which Defy Dictionaries. Base, is always ideology. Sure their so called “base” influence upper ones, but it is not the base. Base is something core, without it the thing cannot function. can human live without ideology? Without right or wrong?
It make sense to base our self on other ideologies but not on ideology of means of production or ownership first.
If you think this is misunderstanding, please explain your argument in simple language without using communist jargons if possible.
I suspect hardcore communists doesn’t want to admit flaws instead they blow up dust of words to cover. I also suspect that i can be wrong or half understood the argument or using wrong definition of terms, that’s why i am posting here
How could we look at social dynamics? One way is Dave Snowden’s Cynefin. From that perspective, complex systems have actors, constructors, and constraints. The three of them are called ACTANTS. How do ACTANTS relate to base and superstructure? Well, each ACTANT of the system could be classified as base or superstructure.
Why am I saying that each ACTANT could be classified as base or superstructure? Because we should be open to the possibility that there are different ways of looking at the same thing in the world. We can look at a mountain from the north, from the south, from the base, or from the peak. Similarly, we can look at social relations as base and superstructure or as complex Cynefin systems (or other points of view!).
How do you know whether to classify ACTANTS into base and superstructure or not? Context. Use the pragmatic criterion: Is it helpful to classify the ACTANTS into base and superstructure in this particular context?