Since I am sick in bed for the next couple of days I am passing my time in odd ways. Maybe this is rude of me to post this, as this thread was not addressed at me in anyway (i was just lurking), and I am cutting and pasting this from another forum. Still, I am 99% sure it won't do me any good to ask or raise questions on said forum.
So in relation to "social issues trumping econ issues" and asking to describe ones position to the question:
I'm a fan of intersectionalist holism, but I'm also pretty skeptical of economics as a profession and domain of knowledge. It's largely overgeneralized and flawed models of behavior. Western political thought in general probably has been too tied to economics, it originally being "political economy" and all. I'd say that both classical marxism, some strains of traditional anarchism, neo-liberalism and free market libertarianism all often fall into economic reductionist tendencies in a variety of ways.
However, due to intersectionality, it doesn't seem correct to frame the alternative to this as social issues trumping economic ones. It's more that these divisions are somewhat arbitrary and what is put foreward as a box of something like "economics" is insufficiently descriptive or useful without being contextualized relative to everything else. It is erroneous to try to reduce the whole to such an unnecessarily restrictive box. But this doesn't mean that the concerns that are typically thought of as being related to that domain are necessarily less important than other
Is anything being said here? I am not too sure I want a critique, rather than to know if anything is actually being said.
If so does anyone know the basis of the claims?
This guy simply doesn't know what he's saying. He's a typical example of an English major hiding behind his "big" words. lol
Political Atheists Blog
production by law of the minimum
This doesn't make any sense.
This argument implicitly assumes that (a) every single input available is required to produce a single and homogeneous unit of output (a single production function for the entire economy) and (b) this production function (which, again, represents the entire economy) is a fixed proportions production function (entirely ignores the concept of substitutability altogether). Additionally, the "scarcest factor" is entirely determined by the ordinal and subjective preferences of consumers, which are in continuous flux (still requires economic calculation, i.e. markets). One might be tempted to say that 'labor and/or capital are the scarcest factors,' but (a) this requires complete homogenization and aggregation and (b) doesn't tell us anything/resolve the coordination/calculation problem (only tells us that labor and capital are required for production).
"If we wish to preserve a free society, it is essential that we recognize that the desirability of a particular object is not sufficient justification for the use of coercion."
"I'm a fan of intersectionalist holism, but I'm also pretty skeptical of economics as a profession and domain of knowledge. It's largely overgeneralized and flawed models of behavior."
I assume intersectionalist holism means something like a unified discipline rather than separate disciplines, studying objects like economy, society, law, political system, or the economic approach (scarcity and means-ends, praxeology or neoclassical rational choice approach) versus old-fashioned instinct psychology, or class-warfare Marxism, historical determinism etc.
He's skeptical of flawed models. This probably means he thinks capitalism is bad. It also means he shares with Austrians a skepticism of modelling, but he can't conceive of the Austrian theoretical alternative, just as he can't conceive of the the liberal alternative to statist capitalism.
"Western political thought in general probably has been too tied to economics, it originally being "political economy" and all. I'd say that both classical marxism, some strains of traditional anarchism, neo-liberalism and free market libertarianism all often fall into economic reductionist tendencies in a variety of ways."
Political thought too much associated with economic reasoning? Or too much about economic policies and economic systems? Economic reductionism would mean that a country, a society, life, everything is reduced to the economy. So Marxism reduces you to a worker or a capitalist. This obscures other dimensions of life and other struggles. Neoliberalism or libertarian reduces you to simply a consumer or an individual. This makes us think of all social relations in terms of buying and selling, or simply diverts our attention from other social relations. So we find it hard to truly appreciate the value of community, because we don't really see how it is difficult from going to the mall or buying something from the internet.
"However, due to intersectionality, it doesn't seem correct to frame the alternative to this as social issues trumping economic ones."
The solution isn't merely to say that community ought to trump the market. Or that environmental concerns mean polluting industries must be stopped, or whatever.
"It's more that these divisions are somewhat arbitrary and what is put foreward as a box of something like "economics" is insufficiently descriptive or useful without being contextualized relative to everything else."
Rather we are never just consumers or workers or whatever. We always simultaneously experience economic, social, political and environmental relations. Somehow analysis of all these things need to be combined.
"It is erroneous to try to reduce the whole to such an unnecessarily restrictive box."
I assert that what I understand by economics is unnecessarily restrictive
"But this doesn't mean that the concerns that are typically thought of as being related to that domain are necessarily less important than other"
But the economy is important!
What puzzles me is why he lumps traditional anarchism in as guilty of economic reductionism. I really don't know why he thinks that! Maybe it's because they seem hung up on "wage slavery."
By "intersectionality", the author is referring to this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intersectionality
As the article explains, intersectionality is a feminist sociological theory. "Intersectionalist holism" is apparently being used in place of "the anti-categorical approach to intersectionality" (see the section "The complexities of intersectionality" in the above Wikipedia article):
Anticategorical complexity: The anti-categorical approach is based on the deconstruction of categorical divisions. It argues that social categories are an arbitrary construction of history and language and that they contribute little to understanding the ways in which people experience society. Furthermore the anticategorical approach states that, "inequalities are rooted in relationships that are defined by race, class, sexuality, and gender,"[4] therefore the only way to eliminate oppression in society is to eliminate the categories used to section people into differing groups. This analysis claims that society is too complex to be reduced down into finite categories and instead recognizes the need for a holistic approach in understanding intersectionality. [Emphasis added.]
In this context, the author seems to be challenging the traditional dichotomy (or separation) between "economic issues" and "social issues". Given his adherence to the anti-categorical approach to intersectionality, he also considers many social issues to be irreducible to traditional economic analysis.
Hope this helps.
The keyboard is mightier than the gun.
Non parit potestas ipsius auctoritatem.
Voluntaryism Forum
Thanks Sam and Autolykos, I think that may have helped abit, but I am still not so sure. I still am not too sure what is being said, and even if you guys are correct, I still think it seems a bit empty of meaning / pointless to say as it inherently leads to a lot of question begging.
In other words, holistic intersectionality is some annoying cultural Marxist whining about victim-groups being "discriminated" against because they belong to more than one victim-group. The irony is that it proclaims that "the only way to eliminate oppression in society is to eliminate the categories used to section people into differing groups". In other words, let's eliminate categories by reminding everyone that there are categories. Yay! This has got to be one of the stupidest sociological theories I've ever heard of