Economic structures set limits but never fully determine political outcomes

Evidence

First of all, he argued, one must understand the fundamental structure—the objective relations—within society or “the degree of development of the productive forces,” for these set the most fundamental limits and conditions for the whole shape of historical development. From here arise some of the major lines of tendency which might be favorable to this or that line of development. The error of reductionism is then to translate these tendencies and constraints immediately into their absolutely determined political and ideological effects, or, alternatively, to abstract them into some “iron law of necessity.” In fact, they structure and determine only in the sense that they define the terrain on which historical forces move—they define the horizon of possibilities. But they can, in neither the first nor the last instance, fully determine the content of political and economic struggles, much less objectively fix or guarantee the outcomes of such struggles. — Stuart Hall, Essential Essays, Volume 2, 100

Categorization

• DEFINE: Lays out Gramsci’s non-reductionist reading of base-structure: productive forces define the horizon of possibilities rather than guarantee outcomes.
• XREF: Directly feeds the Islamophobia toolkit’s use of structure-vs-superstructure and how the field rejects economism. — connects to: The economy is a game whose outcome no one knows — Michel Foucault, The Birth of Biopolitics: Lectures at…, 931; Economic crises are ambiguous enough to enable wildly divergent political outcomes. — Arthur Borriello and Anton Jäger, The Populist Moment: The Left After the…, 99