The superstructural character of religion is a concept of dialectical materialism, assigning an infrastructural one to the economy; however, this would be wrong, since both religion and economics would play a role in the structural value of culture; which is the specifically human nature in which reality is reorganized, with its redetermination in this sense. In this way, it would not be possible to have a human element that is itself super structural, but would all be infrastructural; In fact, it fulfills an economic function, with the organization of culture, because of the relationship of these functions to each other.
In fact, religion would have been the first economic
organization of society, with its distribution of resources as capital; who
would later specialize in its various functions, with the gradual development
of society, as political. It is here that the first infrastructural function of
the economy, as the political determination of society, becomes
super-structural; but not in its character but only in its effective function,
since it would continue to respond to this original cultural nature, in its religious
identity; but displaced by trade as a properly economic function, in the first
contradiction in the political development of society.
This would be because all these developments are
diachronic and not synchronic, converging in their determination of society; which
as a political, arises from the contradiction in which these substructures are
related, in their respective functions as supra and infrastructural. This
separates these characteristics from their respective functions, insofar as
both are proper of the structurality of culture; but differentiated in their
special function, as respectively supra and infrastructural, generating this
contradiction as political.
As a result, is with the specialization of commerce that
the economic determination of culture differs from the religious; but both are
economic in nature, in the primary meaning of the concept, as internal or structural
order. And thus, is here that culture artificially reproduces de development
process of reality un nature, with its historical sense; making place for the
dialectic, as a way to understand this whole process as historical, but not as
an effective determination of history itself.
This would be why Historic Materialism distorts the
comprehension of reality, as a false realism in its idealistic nature; since it
can’t comprehend the trialectic and not dialectic nature of reality, since it
understands reality from this political —and not existential— nature. That
would have been the original comprehension of reality provided by the religion,
in its primary economic function; but lost with its displacement, in the
specialization of this economic function by the commerce, and its inversion of
political determinations of society.
This should not be as an apology of the religious
determinations of society, in culture as reality in its human nature; but as an
understanding of the actual problems of dialectics in this comprehension of
reality, thus susceptible of correction. This is what would allow a change of
parameter, from dialectic to trialectic, as more adequate to the proper nature
of reality; actually formulated —at least as intuitions— in all religious
traditions, in the recurrence of successive triads and trinities.
No comments:
Post a Comment