In the Church, the absence of a common culture very often inhibits the correct group organization and consciousness. Some members know nothing but home affairs, clothing and social affairs. Others know nothing but business. Others still have different information services. There is no culture, no common knowledge; and as a result, individual members can only communicate with their small cliques of members; and the minister must be extremely versatile in communicating with these cliques, and he is pitifully deformed when he tries to communicate with the whole group. This situation is avoided by the selectivity of the members and by the introduction of a common culture through clubs, conferences and other social education activities. A great social organization that everyone knows is a hospital. Inside the hospital, there are small social organizations – for example, the health care staff and the response team. These small organizations work more closely together to do more for their field, making the hospital more prosperous and sustainable. Overall, the hospital contains all the characteristics of a social organization. In a hospital, there are different relationships between all staff members and also with patients.
This is one of the main reasons why a hospital is a social organization. There is also a sharing of work, structure, cohesiveness and communication systems. To work as efficiently as possible, a hospital must contain all the characteristics of a social organization, because that is what makes it strong. Without one of these things, it would be difficult for this organization to execute them. As we saw at the beginning of the chapter, Marx`s declaration of the exploitative being of industrial society is based on a broader theory of the development of human societies, from the first hunter-cuein to modern times: historical materialism. For Marx, the underlying structure of societies and the forces of historical change was based on the relationship between the „base and the superstructure“ of societies. In this model, the economic structure of society forms its basis on which culture and other social institutions are based and constitute its superstructure. For Marx, it is the basis – the mode of economic production – that determines what culture, law, political system, the form of the family will look like and, above all, its typical form of struggle or conflict of a society. Any type of society – hunter-gatherer, pastoral, agricultural, feudal, capitalist – could be characterized as the whole way of life that is formed around different economic bases. To understand this dynamic, it is important to take care of the dialectic of culture.