Economic determinism?

[Jacob Cliff]

I know Engels, and I think Marx, too, did address this and claim that they recognized that economics isn't the only factor in development and history – but I never saw an explanation of other factors they took into account. The following quote, to me, only reaffirms the postulation that they were economic determinists:

"In the social production of their existence, men inevitably enter into definite relations, which are independent of their will, namely relations of production appropriate to a given stage in the development of their material forces of production. The totality of these relations of production constitutes the economic structure of society, the real foundation, on which arises a legal and political superstructure and to which correspond definite forms of social consciousness. The mode of production of material life conditions the general process of social, political and intellectual life. It is not the consciousness of men that determines their existence, but their social existence that determines their consciousness. At a certain stage of development, the material productive forces of society come into conflict with the existing relations of production or – this merely expresses the same thing in legal terms – with the property relations within the framework of which they have operated hitherto. From forms of development of the productive forces these relations turn into their fetters. Then begins an era of social revolution. The changes in the economic foundation lead sooner or later to the transformation of the whole immense superstructure."

Now, this is NOT meant to be a criticism. If anything, it leads to my other question: how is "economic determinism" wrong at all? Most things – cultural backgrounds and rituals, norms and preferences, etc., are reducible to economic forms. In the end, can one reduce this all to the sphere of economics?

[Rafiq]

Because it assumes the "economic" as a positive category that is elevated among other "possibilities" for the source of historic determination. For Marx and Engels, there is no 'A to B' relationship in the determination of history, it is an active, spiral process.

They do not add some new empirical revelation about what determines what. They simply understand history without acknowledging the "possibility" of superstitious, metaphysical explanations of human history.

Human societies determine themselves, are self-sufficient unto themselves, as modes of human life and conditions of human existence. That's all there is to it. Marx and Engels recognize that modes of life itself, not simply the economy, determine the content of human thought.

[ckaihatsu]

At a certain stage of development, the material productive forces of society come into conflict with the existing relations of production or – this merely expresses the same thing in legal terms – with the property relations within the framework of which they have operated hitherto. From forms of development of the productive forces these relations turn into their fetters. Then begins an era of social revolution. The changes in the economic foundation lead sooner or later to the transformation of the whole immense superstructure."


It's *not* economic determinism, because such a corresponding analysis would, by definition, be looking at *economic* factors, like GDP or the stock markets *primarily* to ascertain when conditions would be ripe for social revolution.

So if the framework at-hand is '[economic] base and [social-dominant] superstructure', then that's *not* economic determinism, because the case could be that the 'superstructure' (the paradigm of conventional social expectations) becomes *outmoded* and *frustrated*, compared to what the world is actually capable-of -- but not actually realizing -- in potentials for production (its objectively possible capacities for productivity).

A good example here would be that of *digitally*-based goods and services: The 'superstructure' interests of copyright ownership would be on the side of making each digital copy of something, like a webpage, to be legally treated as economically equivalent to *every other* copy, or viewing. (So the resulting paradigm could be one, for example, in which the cost of producing a webpage would be recouped with every person's visit to that webpage or website, by charging them for that access.)

However, as we know, the digital 'economic foundation' is one of websites (content providers) chasing-after *users*, because there's so much variety to choose from for any given person on the World Wide Web (not to mention the content available through *other* Internet-based communications protocols). So there's a profound *mismatch* between logical 'superstructure' / 'legal' expectations, and what the 'economic base' is actually producing in the way of digital content, as with websites and webpages.

Thus we have the 'Information Revolution', where the 'digital commons' is now a *thing*, meaning that social contact and resulting relations are no longer constrained to in-person, or even one-to-one (small-group) kinds of interactions.

Also -- note that in the following historical taxonomy a society's 'technology / technique', its 'mode of production', *and* its 'class struggle' all subsume its economics.


[1] History, Macro Micro -- Precision

http://s6.postimg.org/nmlxvtqlt/1_History_Macro_Micro_Precision.jpg (http://postimg.org/image/zbpxjshkd/full/)

[Jacob Cliff]

It's *not* economic determinism, because such a corresponding analysis would, by definition, be looking at *economic* factors, like GDP or the stock markets *primarily* to ascertain when conditions would be ripe for social revolution.

So if the framework at-hand is '[economic] base and [social-dominant] superstructure', then that's *not* economic determinism, because the case could be that the 'superstructure' (the paradigm of conventional social expectations) becomes *outmoded* and *frustrated*, compared to what the world is actually capable-of -- but not actually realizing -- in potentials for production (its objectively possible capacities for productivity).

A good example here would be that of *digitally*-based goods and services: The 'superstructure' interests of copyright ownership would be on the side of making each digital copy of something, like a webpage, to be legally treated as economically equivalent to *every other* copy, or viewing. (So the resulting paradigm could be one, for example, in which the cost of producing a webpage would be recouped with every person's visit to that webpage or website, by charging them for that access.)

However, as we know, the digital 'economic foundation' is one of websites (content providers) chasing-after *users*, because there's so much variety to choose from for any given person on the World Wide Web (not to mention the content available through *other* Internet-based communications protocols). So there's a profound *mismatch* between logical 'superstructure' / 'legal' expectations, and what the 'economic base' is actually producing in the way of digital content, as with websites and webpages.

Thus we have the 'Information Revolution', where the 'digital commons' is now a *thing*, meaning that social contact and resulting relations are no longer constrained to in-person, or even one-to-one (small-group) kinds of interactions.

Also -- note that in the following historical taxonomy a society's 'technology / technique', its 'mode of production', *and* its 'class struggle' all subsume its economics.


[1] History, Macro Micro -- Precision

http://s6.postimg.org/nmlxvtqlt/1_History_Macro_Micro_Precision.jpg (http://postimg.org/image/zbpxjshkd/full/)
*Thank you*