Thread: Economic determinism.

The theory that the over riding structure of society and how history plays out finds its root in economic law. My question on the issue of economic determinism is not simply about the questions that arise from objective analysis of the factual accuracy of determinist claims, but rather of the idea that economic interaction could be the ultimate expression of societies structure and organization. Can one logically conclude that economics defines every aspect of the human experience? furthermore would it be accurate to claim that all political will and expression is just another form of raging against some economic machine? Please discuss and make known your feelings on the idea of economic determinism as well as its parameters.

Originally Posted by AgentM

I don't think so. Some people like to reduce everything to economics, but to do so is to ignore other important aspects of humanity. Economics is simply one factor among many (albeit admittedly a major one). I think some people like to reduce everything to one factor because they're intellectually lazy/dishonest. It's easy to only think about one factor, compared to many things which usually inform the human experience.

So how would you reply to someone whose claim was that every facet of the human experience and resulting interaction flows from and finds its base in economics?

Sounds like a debate question from class, lol. Nicely worded, too.

Yes and No. It's not quite right to say every thing and action is a result or by-product of an economic instance; but I would argue that economics has a heavy, heavy influence on the essentials of both the individual's daily life and the society's structure as a whole: from one's own psychological functioning to the society (as a whole) and its acceptable norms. Such favorites as 'freedom' may be nothing more than the ironic awareness of the market's adjustments to the consumer demand; much as other abstract concepts have often been traced back to being ruled by the 'invisible hand of the market'.

I'd add more but I'm kind of waiting to see what you're expecting, your response to your own question, and others' responses.

Originally Posted by Sinopec

Sounds like a debate question from class, lol. Nicely worded, too.

Yes and No. It's not quite right to say every thing and action is a result or by-product of an economic instance; but I would argue that economics has a heavy, heavy influence on the essentials of both the individual's daily life and the society's structure as a whole: from one's own psychological functioning to the society (as a whole) and its acceptable norms. Such favorites as 'freedom' may be nothing more than the ironic awareness of the market's adjustments to the consumer demand; much as other abstract concepts have often been traced back to being ruled by the 'invisible hand of the market'.

I'd add more but I'm kind of waiting to see what you're expecting, your response to your own question, and others' responses.

First of all, it actually isn't from class. It is just a musing of mine. Interesting idea that freedom could simply be a reaction to market adjustments. I think if economics is at the center of all human interaction, we as a society can kiss goodbye ideology based on truth. Rational self interest and radical self preservation becomes the basis of human interaction.

Originally Posted by AgentM

I would say they're ignoring human emotions, and the fact that people do things sometimes that aren't in their economic interests.

But that isn't getting at the heart of the question. I mean the claim is that all of these things spring from economic circumstance and situation. It is at its very heart modernism.

Originally Posted by AgentM

Some people reduce everything to people's religious beliefs (or lack thereof), what I said about reductionism would still apply. People who try to reduce complex situations to one factor are either lazy, or they're trying to play an ideological angle.

I see it more as the 'six degrees of human separation'; essentially everything can be broke down to economics, in say 3 degrees of separation; some more of a stretch than others.

Originally Posted by AgentM

Some people reduce everything to people's religious beliefs (or lack thereof), what I said about reductionism would still apply. People who try to reduce complex situations to one factor are either lazy, or they're trying to play an ideological angle.

It would only apply if you presented objective analysis demonstrating intellectual dis ingenuousness. I mean the claim of economic determinists comes with an explanation of history. It won't do to simply call them intellectually lazy. They are anything but.