>>15736>>15796SUPERSTRUCTURE, CULTURE, OTHER CATEGORIES
I do not believe there is particular coalitions involving different sectors or industries of Capitalists and Workers. Maybe electorally, voter blocs and so on.
And sure you can divide class among particular lines and I don't disagree with it for analysis.
But you have not stated these properly, no strata has been named, no ethnicities or religions have been named, which sure you can divide for analysis.
But we cannot do so here…as my argument is they are class or relate to it, one way or another, fundamentally so, here is why:
Either they are:
Materially, economically and at the base
or
Culturally, characteristically at the superstructure.
Base and Superstructure: Base generally affects and shapes superstructure, while the superstructure strengthens and maintains the base…
However also vice versa: Superstructure can LIMIT or EXPAND the base, accelerate or stagnate the Base. both interact with each other.
now my argument:
Geography is not some thing that magically divides politics or class. It is a very real, very concrete thing, Geography may point to class formation, it may tell us agricultural Workers are here, industrial workers are there, richer peoples are here and poorer peoples are there.
Education, is superstructure, learning is ultimately a cultural activity although has base elements such as dividing labour, so they mix together in a way, but you can argue it leans one way.
Education doesn't nessecarily divide class or politics or class politics, it can be an indicator possibly of politics and class, of backwardness or progresiveness, the level or place of education can indicate your own class, this may even relate back to Geography.
Education also internally class, political, there are many different theories of school and its relation to production, to class, generally such as propagandizing and indoctrination.
Race and ethnicity: is a character of class or some may argue it takes the size of class structure or even Is a class. I would argue rather it's a tied character, something inseparable.
Race is used to divide class not just internally against each other e.g. working class. Racism is used by the owning classes to justify exploitation.
Race can even relate to class formation, proletarianizing certain people while other ethnicities get more heightened to better positions e.g. English and Irish
It can be used to differentiate ownership of land and property.
But also externally divide class, sometimes certain classes are formed by certain races or ethnicities
e.g. slavs to slaves! or the African people taken as slaves! or Jews and finance/banking! and so on.
Race can specify occupation and labour, used for particular production. It can even be used for currency or monetary regulation, of wages within a class, or reserve armies of labour.
Race and ethnicity are connected to class, specifically production and the labour markets, tied to different modes and means of production.
Race can relate to class struggle or particular class interests.
However the primary relation is colonialism and imperialism to race and ethnicity, to unequal exchange, international relations, finance capital and free trade zones e.g. NAFTA, Zapatistas, Mexican Govt. and communal land.
Religion, although metaphysical and superstructural will still have people, it's rituals, structures and so on all real and material. In fact Religion as superstructure may even affect the base e.g. A religion has a sacred tree, this is valuable as a resource, an foreign extractor Is interested in this, or maybe even particular people within the religion, now the religion prohibits any usage of this sacred tree thus limiting development of the mode of production, building new tech and so on or possibly helping a local environment or whatever, you can see the superstructural affects on the base, the cultural on the economic.
Ultimately OP, you just need to read more, get a more educated marxist perspective, you are nearly there and almost thinking among such lines, you have to think about about world through this framework of Marxism and holistically with it.
MY SOURCES:
I am going off memory, general line of thinking of historical materialim from: Marx, Engels, Immanuel Wallerstein, Samir Amin, G.A. Cohen, Jason W Moore, John Bellamy Foster.
^ A mix of original historical materialism, ecological, dependency or world-systems theorists and one analytical marxist which are usually incorrect but sometimes correct.
But most recently I have learned alot about Marxist theory of development, historical analysis or base and superstructure from Walter Rodney.
Walter Rodney, in the beginning of his book "How Europe Underdeveloped Africa" spends alot of time before the meat of the book, discussing the origins and history of man, the marxist stages of production, development of civilization along class lines and so on however what struck me was his Base and Superstructure, I'm sure it originated elsewhere but how he used it was very enlightening and informs much of the above.