Material Contradictions and Political Crisis: A Marxist Analysis of Bangladesh\'s July 2024 Uprising

২৬ শে অক্টোবর, ২০২৫ বিকাল ৫:৫২

Material Contradictions and Political Crisis: A Marxist Analysis of Bangladesh's July 2024 Uprising

1. Introduction: The Marxist Analytical Framework
The July 2024 uprising in Bangladesh provides a compelling case study for applying Marx's base-superstructure framework to understand revolutionary transformation in a developing society. According to Marx, societies consist of an economic base (the mode of production, forces of production, and relations of production) and a superstructure (political institutions, ideology, culture, law, and religion). Marx argued that "the mode of production of material life conditions the general process of social, political, and intellectual life" and that contradictions between the base and superstructure eventually necessitate revolutionary transformation.
The Bangladeshi case demonstrates how transformations in the economic base—initiated through infrastructure development and economic liberalization under the Awami League—created new productive forces and class relations. However, the political superstructure failed to accommodate these changes, remaining rigid and exclusionary. This contradiction between a transformed base and an anachronistic superstructure ultimately manifested in the July 2024 uprising, validating Marx's insight that "at a certain stage of development, the material productive forces of society come into conflict with the existing relations of production."

2. The Transformation of the Economic Base
2.1 Forces of Production: Infrastructure and Industrial Development
The Awami League's governance fundamentally altered Bangladesh's economic base through systematic development of productive forces:
Hard Infrastructure: Construction of bridges (Padma Bridge), highways, electricity generation capacity, industrial zones, and port facilities expanded the material capacity for production. These investments transformed the physical infrastructure that determines how labor power can be deployed and commodities produced.
Soft Infrastructure: Expansion of education (particularly primary and secondary enrollment), healthcare facilities, microfinance institutions, and telecommunications networks enhanced human capital and created conditions for more sophisticated economic activity.
Industrial Transformation: The ready-made garment (RMG) sector's expansion, pharmaceutical manufacturing growth, and emerging technology sectors represented a shift in the mode of production from predominantly agricultural to industrial-manufacturing capitalism.
These developments constituted genuine transformations in the forces of production—the material means by which society produces its necessities and amenities of life.
2.2 Relations of Production: Emergence of New Class Fractions
The transformed productive forces generated new relations of production and class configurations:
The New Working Class: RMG workers, service sector employees, gig economy laborers, and industrial workers emerged as a distinct fraction of the working class, characterized by wage labor in formal and semi-formal sectors.
Lower-Middle Class: Small entrepreneurs, mid-level managers, educated unemployed or underemployed youth, and skilled technical workers formed a new petty bourgeoisie—economically mobile but politically marginalized.
Rural Proletarianization: Agricultural mechanization and land concentration displaced traditional peasantry, creating a rural proletariat seeking urban opportunities or engaging in wage labor locally.
New Bourgeois Fractions: Real estate developers, logistics entrepreneurs, technology sector capitalists, and contractors tied to infrastructure projects represented new fractions of capital accumulation.
These new class fractions, produced by changes in the mode of production, possessed distinct material interests and social consciousness. Critically, their emergence represented a transformation of the economic base that would necessarily demand corresponding transformations in the political superstructure.

3. The Rigid Superstructure: Political Institutions and Ideology
3.1 Political Society: The Ossified State Apparatus
The political superstructure—what Gramsci termed "political society" (the coercive apparatus of the state)—remained essentially unchanged despite economic base transformation:
Dynastic Political Structure: The political system continued to revolve around liberation war-era families and personalities, with the Awami League dominated by Sheikh Hasina's leadership and the BNP by the Zia family. This dynastic character prevented new class fractions from accessing political power through existing channels.
Centralized Party Structure: Internal party democracy remained minimal, with leadership selection occurring through patronage rather than democratic processes. This prevented the incorporation of emerging social forces into political decision-making.
Winner-Take-All Electoral System: The political system operated on zero-sum logic, where electoral victory meant total control and defeat meant exclusion. This structure provided no mechanism for proportional representation of new social forces.
Repressive State Apparatus: Security forces, surveillance mechanisms, and legal instruments (such as the Digital Security Act) were deployed to suppress dissent rather than accommodate new political demands.
This political rigidity reflected what Marx identified as the tendency of superstructures to lag behind base transformations, creating a structural contradiction.
3.2 Civil Society and Ideology: Secular Nationalism's Limits
The ideological dimensions of the superstructure—what Gramsci termed "civil society" (the consensus-creating elements)—also failed to adapt:
Liberation War Narrative: The dominant ideology centered on 1971 liberation war history as the exclusive basis for political legitimacy. While historically significant, this narrative could not incorporate the aspirations of generations born decades after liberation who faced different material conditions.
Secular-Religious Binary: The ideological framework posited a rigid dichotomy between secular Bengali nationalism and religious identity, leaving no space for citizens who identified with both. This artificial binary alienated large segments of the newly emerged classes.
Developmentalism as Legitimation: The state's ideology emphasized economic growth and infrastructure as sufficient bases for legitimacy, assuming that material improvements would substitute for political participation. This reflected what Marx criticized as treating consciousness as separate from material social existence.
Cultural Hegemony: Educational curricula, media narratives, and state ceremonies reinforced the dominance of existing political formations while marginalizing alternative political expressions.

4. The Dialectical Contradiction: Base vs. Superstructure
4.1 The Fundamental Contradiction
The central contradiction emerged between:
BASE: New productive forces → New class fractions → New material interests and social consciousness → Demand for political incorporation
SUPERSTRUCTURE: Ossified political institutions → Exclusionary ideology → Repressive apparatus → Denial of political accommodation
This contradiction manifested Marx's insight that "at a certain stage of development, the material productive forces of society come into conflict with the existing relations of production." The political superstructure—the existing "relations of production" in the political sphere—became fetters on the forces represented by new social classes.
4.2 Gramsci's Hegemonic Crisis
Antonio Gramsci's refinement of base-superstructure theory illuminates another dimension: the crisis of hegemony. Hegemony requires both coercion (political society) and consent (civil society). The Awami League maintained coercive capacity but lost hegemonic consent as its ideology could not incorporate emerging class fractions.
When the dominant class cannot maintain hegemony through civil society, it increasingly relies on political society's coercive apparatus. This produces what Gramsci termed a "crisis of authority"—the very crisis evident in Bangladesh before July 2024.

5. The Accommodation Failure: Religion as Alternative Superstructure
5.1 Jamaat-e-Islami and Hefazat-e-Islam: Alternative Political Forms
Into the gap created by superstructural rigidity stepped religious-political organizations. These groups provided what Marxist theory terms "alternative hegemonic formations"—competing superstructures that could accommodate excluded class fractions:
Organizational Infrastructure: Mosques, madrasas, charitable networks, and religious associations provided parallel institutions through which marginalized classes could organize.
Alternative Ideology: Religious discourse offered an ideological framework that:
• Validated the cultural identity of traditional and newly mobile classes
• Provided moral legitimation for critiques of corruption and inequality
• Offered a vision of social justice rooted in religious rather than secular terms
• Created solidarity based on religious identity cutting across class lines
Material Support: Religious organizations provided education, healthcare, microfinance, and employment networks—material services that created organic connections to emerging class fractions.
Political Voice: These organizations became vehicles through which economically mobile but politically excluded groups could articulate demands and mobilize collectively.
5.2 Base Determination of Superstructural Choice
The accommodation of new class fractions by religious rather than secular-progressive organizations was not predetermined ideologically but determined materially:
1. Geographic Distribution: New economic opportunities concentrated in areas where religious networks were strongest—rural areas, small cities, and traditional urban neighborhoods.
2. Educational Pathways: Many in the newly mobile classes accessed education through madrasa systems, creating organic connections to religious institutions.
3. Cultural Capital: Religious organizations validated cultural practices (language use, dress, social customs) that secular political institutions often stigmatized as backward.
4. Exclusion from Secular Politics: The closed nature of secular political parties meant religious organizations offered the only accessible organizational infrastructure.
This demonstrates Marx's materialist insight: "It is not the consciousness of men that determines their existence, but their social existence that determines their consciousness." The turn to religious politics reflected material conditions of exclusion rather than inherent religious predisposition.

6. Revolutionary Crisis: When Contradictions Become Unbearable
6.1 Huntington and Marx: Convergent Insights
Samuel Huntington's political development theory, while not Marxist, converges with Marx's base-superstructure analysis. Huntington argued that rapid social mobilization without political institutionalization breeds revolution. In Marxist terms: when the base transforms faster than the superstructure can accommodate, revolutionary rupture becomes inevitable.
The Bangladeshi case demonstrates this convergence:
Social Mobilization (Base): Economic development → New class formation → Political consciousness → Demand for representation
Institutional Rigidity (Superstructure): Exclusionary politics → Repression of demands → Accumulation of contradictions → Revolutionary pressure
6.2 The July 2024 Uprising: Superstructural Transformation
The July uprising represents what Marx termed the revolutionary transformation of the superstructure necessitated by base contradictions. Several materialist factors converged:
Immediate Trigger (Quota System): The protest against employment quotas reflected material contradictions—educated youth facing economic insecurity demanding access to state employment. This was a base issue (access to means of subsistence through employment) dressed in superstructural terms (fair institutional rules).
Class Alliance: The uprising unified diverse class fractions:
• Students (emerging educated class)
• Workers (RMG and informal sector)
• Lower-middle class (small business owners, professionals)
• Unemployed youth (reserve army of labor)
This cross-class character indicated not merely economic demands but demands for political superstructure transformation.
Digital Means of Production: Social media and mobile technology—modern forces of production—enabled coordination despite state repression, demonstrating how new productive forces enable new forms of political organization.
Legitimacy Crisis: The state's coercive apparatus (political society) could not compensate for loss of hegemonic consent (civil society), producing revolutionary rupture.
Superstructural Demands: Beyond immediate grievances, the movement demanded:
• Electoral reform (transformation of political institutions)
• Accountability mechanisms (new relations of political power)
• Inclusion of marginalized groups (accommodation of new class fractions)
• Democratic rights (transformation of political society from coercive to representative)
These demands constituted a comprehensive program for superstructural transformation to align with the already-transformed base.


7. The Relative Autonomy Problem: Why Superstructures Lag
7.1 Engels on "The Last Instance"
Engels, refining Marx's framework, argued that the base determines the superstructure "only in the last instance," acknowledging the relative autonomy of superstructural elements. This autonomy explains why political institutions did not automatically adjust to economic base transformations.
Several factors produced superstructural lag in Bangladesh:
Path Dependency: Political institutions established during the liberation struggle possessed historical legitimacy that insulated them from pressure for transformation. The weight of 1971 made these institutions "relatively autonomous" from contemporary economic base.
Superstructural Interests: Those controlling political institutions (party leaders, bureaucrats, security apparatus) possessed material interests in maintaining existing structures regardless of base changes. The superstructure develops its own logic of reproduction.
Ideological Reproduction: Educational systems, media, and cultural institutions reproduced liberation war narratives, creating ideological inertia resistant to incorporation of new social forces.
International Factors: Geopolitical considerations and international capital's interests in Bangladesh's stability provided external support for maintaining the existing superstructure despite domestic contradictions.
This relative autonomy meant the superstructure could resist base pressures temporarily—but only temporarily. Eventually, as Marx argued, base contradictions must force superstructural transformation.
7.2 Raymond Williams: Process, Not State
Raymond Williams, a contemporary Marxist theorist, argued against viewing base and superstructure as static categories. The base is "a process, not a state"—continuous transformation of productive forces and relations. Similarly, the superstructure is dynamic, with different elements changing at different rates.
The Bangladesh case illustrates this processual understanding:
• Economic base transformed continuously from 2009-2024
• Some superstructural elements adapted (bureaucratic capacity for development administration)
• Other elements remained rigid (electoral institutions, dynastic politics)
• Contradictions accumulated gradually until revolutionary threshold was crossed
The uprising represents not a single moment of transformation but the culmination of long-developing contradictions between base and superstructure.


8. Post-Revolutionary Challenges: Reconstructing the Superstructure
8.1 The Reform Imperative in Marxist Terms
Post-uprising Bangladesh faces the challenge of constructing a new superstructure that corresponds to the transformed economic base. This requires:
Political Institutions (Political Society):
• Electoral system reform to enable proportional representation of diverse class fractions
• Decentralization creating multiple political arenas for participation
• Party democratization allowing bottom-up leadership selection
• Transformation of security apparatus from repressive to protective functions
Ideological Apparatus (Civil Society):
• Educational reform incorporating diverse historical narratives
• Media pluralism allowing expression of multiple class perspectives
• Cultural institutions validating diverse identities and aspirations
• Legitimation formulas beyond liberation war exclusivity
Legal Framework:
• Constitutional provisions protecting political pluralism
• Labor laws reflecting new working-class formations
• Property and commercial regulations supporting new entrepreneurial classes
• Rights framework enabling political participation
Economic-Political Integration:
• Mechanisms linking economic stakeholding to political representation
• Institutions managing distribution conflicts democratically
• Policies addressing inequality produced by base transformation
• Development strategies incorporating political participation
8.2 The Risk of Superstructural Restoration
Marx warned that revolutionary moments can produce superstructural restoration rather than transformation—the old ruling class reconstructing its power in new forms. Bangladesh faces several restoration risks:
New Authoritarianism: Military or bureaucratic rule claiming to stabilize society while preventing genuine political pluralism.
Elite Circulation Without Structural Change: New faces in old institutions without transforming underlying political structures.
Co-optation of Religious Forces: Incorporating religious organizations into existing exclusionary structures rather than creating genuinely pluralistic system.
Developmentalist Ideology Redux: New government legitimating itself through economic growth promises while denying political participation.
Avoiding these risks requires recognizing that superstructural transformation must be comprehensive—not merely changing personnel but transforming institutions, ideology, and power relations to correspond with the economic base.


9. Theoretical Implications: Validating and Refining Marx
9.1 What the Bangladesh Case Confirms
The Bangladeshi trajectory validates several core Marxist propositions:
1. Base determines superstructure: Economic transformations created new class formations that demanded political accommodation, ultimately forcing superstructural transformation when accommodation was denied.
2. Contradiction drives change: The contradiction between transformed base and rigid superstructure generated the revolutionary crisis.
3. Material existence precedes consciousness: The turn to religious politics reflected material conditions of exclusion, not primordial religious consciousness.
4. Revolutionary transformation: When contradictions accumulate beyond institutional capacity to manage them, revolutionary rupture becomes necessary.
5. Class analysis remains central: Understanding the uprising requires analyzing class fractions, their material interests, and their political expressions.
9.2 What the Case Complicates
The Bangladesh case also reveals complexities requiring refinement of orthodox Marxism:
Multiple Bases: Bangladesh's economy combines industrial capitalism, traditional agriculture, informal sectors, and rentier elements. Multiple "bases" create complex and sometimes contradictory superstructural demands.
Non-Class Identities: Religious, linguistic, and regional identities shape political consciousness alongside class position. These cannot be reduced to "false consciousness" but must be understood as authentic expressions of social position.
Global Integration: Bangladesh's dependent development within global capitalism means its base is shaped by international forces. The superstructure must mediate between domestic base and global political economy.
Agency and Structure: While base contradictions create conditions for revolution, human agency—organization, ideology, leadership—shapes whether revolutionary moments produce progressive or reactionary outcomes.
Relative Autonomy's Importance: The superstructure's ability to resist base pressures for extended periods means political struggle remains crucial. Base determination is not automatic or mechanical.


10. Conclusion: Dialectics of Development and Democracy
The application of Marx's base-superstructure framework to Bangladesh illuminates the dialectical relationship between economic development and political transformation. The Awami League's development achievements transformed the economic base, creating new productive forces and class relations. However, the political superstructure failed to accommodate these transformations, remaining tied to liberation war-era structures and ideologies.
This contradiction manifested in the marginalization of new socioeconomic groups, who found accommodation in religious-political organizations not through ideological predisposition but through material exclusion from secular political channels. The resulting pressure built until the July 2024 uprising forced revolutionary superstructural transformation.
The case validates Marx's fundamental insight that base transformations ultimately necessitate superstructural changes. No political system can indefinitely resist the pressure created when new productive forces and class relations demand corresponding political accommodation. The failure to understand this dialectical relationship—to recognize that development requires not just economic growth but political transformation—produced the revolutionary crisis.
Moving forward, Bangladesh must construct a new superstructure that corresponds to its transformed economic base. This means:
• Political institutions incorporating diverse class fractions
• Ideology validating multiple identities and aspirations
• Legal frameworks protecting pluralism and participation
• Economic-political integration ensuring stakeholders have voice
The alternative is either new authoritarianism (superstructural restoration in different form) or continued revolutionary instability as base-superstructure contradictions persist.
The broader theoretical lesson extends beyond Bangladesh: in any society experiencing rapid economic transformation, political institutions must evolve correspondingly. Development that transforms the base without adapting the superstructure creates revolutionary conditions. Economic modernization demands political democratization not as moral imperative but as material necessity—a truth Marx articulated in the nineteenth century that remains valid in the twenty-first.
Bangladesh's cross-currents—simultaneous development and exclusion, economic mobility and political marginalization, infrastructure expansion and democratic contraction—ultimately proved unsustainable. The July uprising demonstrated that when the base transforms, the superstructure must follow. The only question is whether transformation occurs through gradual institutional evolution or revolutionary rupture. Bangladesh's choice was made by those who defended superstructural rigidity in the face of base transformation. The result was not merely predictable but, in Marxist terms, dialectically necessary.

০ টি +০/-০