Talk:Economism

Economics Low‑importance

	Business and economics portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Economics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Economics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.EconomicsWikipedia:WikiProject EconomicsTemplate:WikiProject EconomicsEconomics articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Socialism

	Socialism portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Socialism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of socialism on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SocialismWikipedia:WikiProject SocialismTemplate:WikiProject Socialismsocialism articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Politics Low‑importance

	Politics portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of politics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PoliticsWikipedia:WikiProject PoliticsTemplate:WikiProject Politicspolitics articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Criticism

This article is a piece of crap

Agreed. I felt that way ever since I saw the article created. I spared it from AFD because I thought someone would eventually rewrite it. Anyone have any ideas on what to do with it? Solarusdude 19:54, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think it should be gutted, leaving just a minimal non-biased definition of economism. Remove all of the POV and Michael Moore insults and so on. Rlove 15:46, 16 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"Economism" appears to be a straw man. —Ashley Y 03:16, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This article does not appear to salvagable.

This article should probably be deleted.

I agree. I've never heard of "Economism", and the article is so NPOV that it hurts. Tamino 09:42, 2 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Having seen the French article (fr:Économisme), perhaps something can be salvaged after all (if my GCSE French was enough to understand that article...). But a VERY major restructuring and rewriting is needed. Is there anyone who can be quoted as believing in "Economism"? Tamino 09:50, 2 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I am currently studying Marxism and have come across the term in the writings of Luxemburg, Lenin, Kautsky, Bernstein, etc... I'm not sure of its precise meaning (hence I am here looking). From the context in which it is used, however, I think it is pejorative for an ideology of economic materialism which leaves no room for political activity. Lenin, who advocated a vanguard party to facilitate revolution, incessantly criticized others for adhering to economism. 206.248.227.78 21:43, 21 December 2006 (UTC)Brad[reply]

I don't know where the author pulls "economism" from Marxism, but my first encounter with the term came from Wilhelm Roepke, who uses it in A Humane Economy. Roepke, a traditionalist conservative economist, frames "economism," in part, thus, "It is economism to allow material gain to obscure the danger that we may forfeit liberty, variety, and justice and that the concentration of power may grow, and it is also economism to forget that people do not live by cheaper vacuum cleaners alone but by other and higher things which may wither in the shadow of giant industries and monopolies." Roepke argues that the economy should be embedded within the society, not the other way around. When we create economics as a cult and thrust it to the forefront, to the neglect of the individual, we create "economism." Free markets, Roepke argued, do not generate moral norms, they presume them. They offer the freedom of self-discipline, not unchecked greed. I believe this entry could be enriched greatly if someone bothered to bring the sentiments of The Humane Economy to bear on this. - E.L. Beck, The Small "r"--Leebeck33 (talk) 15:34, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Disambig

Economism has a different meaning in the study of marxism. It mean (IIRC) connecting party line with demands of workers. It should be discussed in the article.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk} 18:36, 3 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree, but only in kind - economism is a very specific, technical term that arises in Marxian and heterodox economic theory. It bears only a passing resemebelence to the concept outlined here, and this article is exceedingly flimsy. I strongly recommend that this article be deleted, as it has no real merits and is basically devoid of sources. Haemo 07:39, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Useful article, but needs work and citations.

The term "economism" is commonly used in the field of Human Geography, particulary to criticize more mainstream (often neo-liberal) interpretations of globalization and development. This article should not be deleted. Sources need to be added and partisan language should be edited out. Aylett 03:22, 9 April 2007 (UTC) Aylett[reply]

Is researching some information on Worldviews, I did come across some matrial that might be useful, so its not totally obsolete, it just needs to be refine. Economism

It is seen as the most important factor in society. From it, individuals are able to draw both purpose and self-motivation. Wealth is viewed as a good influence in society, while poverty or lack from any source is viewed negatively. Above all, humanity is seen as self-interested. This is not interpreted as “good” or “bad,” but rather leads to the important conclusion that individuals will usually make their decisions in such a way as to maximize their own personal satisfaction. Most problems, and the barrier that holds mankind back from utopia, come from scarcity. Material want and dissatisfaction are introduced because individuals are forced to forgo certain benefits that are precluded by scarcity. Reductions in economic and political freedoms are also seen as sources of dissatisfaction and scarcity. An individual is part of the collection of all economic agents, who purchase from and provide goods and services to other economic agents. People also exist as citizens in government, whose primary role should be that of guarantor of economic rights (Friedman, 1962). Because deity is usually not considered to play a role in man’s life, individuals themselves and the process of economic exchange and growth provide the unifying and all-important pieces of man’s existence. This period is typically assumed to be non-existent, or simply the legendary product of individual cultures and backgrounds. It may have an affect on a person’s life and actions, but this is simply their own reaction to their beliefs. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.100.98.150 (talk) 22:07, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I encountered this term when researching a document (Laborem Exercens) written by Pope John Paul II. He describes economism as "considering human labour solely according to its economic purpose" (he doesn't like it).--Jamelchior (talk) 20:43, 26 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Only a Marxist term?

I've tagged the article with {{unbalanced}} because I think it gives too much weight to Marxist perspectives, relative to other viewpoints that invoke the term "economism". Economism isn't only a Marxist term; it's also used by author James Kwak. Also, the first paragraph in "Other uses" just repeats the Marxist viewpoint. Qzekrom 💬 ^they_them 06:56, 14 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This is preposterous. This is a well-known MArxist term that has been coopted by right-wing neoclassical economics. The Kwak book is basically a perfect example of the PROBLEM: http://rocksalted.com/2017/06/james-kwak-economism-bad-economics-and-the-rise-of-inequality/ I would agree that this article needs work, but if anything the problem is the opposite of what Qzekrom describes. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.93.254.193 (talk) 13:23, 27 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]