Does communism assume a sort economic rationalism?

[Publius]

I've always thought that it did, that Marx taught that people behave according to their class interest, that class, and individuals in classes, act to what's best for themselves, etc.

But we now know, due to some pretty good science, that people are not rational economic actors at all. At best this is an approximation, at worst it's a distortion. So what does this say about Marxism? How can classes be expected to act rationally, in their interest when the individuals that comprise them can't be expected to do so? We often hear about "the wisdom of the crowd", but very often the crowd is stupid and wrong.

What basis, then, do we have for assuming that the working class can or will band together to form a global revolution? Does that require a level of universal rationality that people simply do not have?

[Lynx]

One could look at history and evaluate whether revolutions were eruptions of rational self-interest or the result of mass manipulation.

[Dr Mindbender]

its not reliably scientific to say that people are or arent 'rational economic actors'.
Firstly it depends what you mean by people. People who werent born into privilege often do live outside their means, but thats down to the material conditioning under which they were brought up, and unrealistic standards and aspirations that are dangled above their noses by the free market.

[Publius]

its not reliably scientific to say that people are or arent 'rational economic actors'.

Yes it is. Look up Kahneman's research on risk aversion.

People will refuse economically good deals.

Look at game theory, at things like the prisoner's dilemma.

If people were rational economic actors, they would act to maximize their own gain in both of these situations. But they usually they don't, because their rational economic decisions are overpowered by the risk and fear sectors of their brains.

It's very interesting science.



Firstly it depends what you mean by people. People who werent born into privilege often do live outside their means, but thats down to the material conditioning under which they were brought up, and unrealistic standards and aspirations that are dangled above their noses by the free market.

That's not exactly what I mean, though it is part of it.

What I mean is that people will not accept deals which are in fact good for them, as communism might be, because they make economic decisions that are not based entirely, or even mostly, on rationality.

It might be the case that rational economic actors would decide to start a communist revolution, but that isn't the same thing as saying that it will be the case that human beings will.

[Dr Mindbender]

Originally posted by [email protected] 21, 2007 06:22 pm


It might be the case that rational economic actors would decide to start a communist revolution, but that isn't the same thing as saying that it will be the case that human beings will.
it is capitalism that preserves those 'irrational motives'. By replacing the existing status quo with one where the primary onus is not wealth accumulation, the ones you refer to will have an easier time conforming to your 'rational economic thought'

[la-troy]

People like to feel secure. People know capitalism and they feel safe in it to some extent. Personally I believe it's more rational to stay in capitalism, not that I want to. But we have seen capitalism in action for so long we know its short comings and we know its disadvantages, but communism on the other hand we know practically nothing about. We are asking people to leave something they know for the unknown. What will happen if communism fails? how will society be structured? most people want better yes but they also want assurance. A guy working in a factory feels better knowing that when he works he gets some money however unfair he may view his plight to be, atleast he has a good idea of what will happen.

[Dr Mindbender]

Originally posted by la-troy+--> (la-troy) People like to feel secure. People know capitalism and they feel safe in it to some extent[/b]
No offence but thats a weak argument in favour of it/

Originally posted by la-troy+--> (la-troy)
Personally I believe it's more rational to stay in capitalism, not that I want to. But we have seen capitalism in action for so long we know its short comings and we know its disadvantages, but communism on the other hand we know practically nothing about. We are asking people to leave something they know for the unknown. What will happen if communism fails? [/b]
Its not possible to succeed under capitalism without some degree of risk taking so that argument falls at the first hurdle.

la-[email protected]

how will society be structured? most people want better yes but they also want assurance. communism is the best way of providing that assurance because it protects against homelessness, purposelessness and poverty. Under Capitalism there is no lower limit to how far you can sink so it fails to provide that protection.

la-troy

A guy working in a factory feels better knowing that when he works he gets some money however unfair he may view his plight to be, atleast he has a good idea of what will happen.
No he doesnt. His landlord might decide to put up his rent. His boss might decide his services are no longer needed and sack him. The only means of protection under capitalism the workers have gained are progressive socialistic entities and concepts like the minimum wage and trade unions. We are not indebted to capitalism for these.

[la-troy]

No offence but thats a weak argument in favour of it/

Just stating that people know capitalism. for some thats all they know, they don't know of any other system. so naturally they feel more secure in it than any other system.


Its not possible to succeed under capitalism without some degree of risk taking so that argument falls at the first hurdle.

Some degree of risk yes. but what is riskier investing in a company that might fail, working for a company that might crash or starting a new system that in all honesty has had very limited success in history.


communism is the best way of providing that assurance because it protects against homelessness, purposelessness and poverty. Under Capitalism there is no lower limit to how far you can sink so it fails to provide that protection.

Yes you know this and I know this. but the big difference between you, me and the average guy, well at least average guy in my country. is that you and i have studied communism. we have researched and examined scenarios and came up with our own understanding of communism and an appreciation for it, that the average man might not have, the only thing he may know about communism is that one guy controls everything or one party controls everything.

Now remember what i said with the factory guy he has a fiar idea of what is going to happen. of course he might be laid off, his land lord evicts him, inflation goes up he cant afford food etc but in most developed and in developing countries there is some consistency. he works he makes money he pays bills and he tries to get by this is better than the unknown.

[syndicat]

publius:
Yes it is. Look up Kahneman's research on risk aversion.

People will refuse economically good deals.

Look at game theory, at things like the prisoner's dilemma.

If people were rational economic actors, they would act to maximize their own gain in both of these situations. But they usually they don't, because their rational economic decisions are overpowered by the risk and fear sectors of their brains.


You're assuming methodological individualism, which tries to reduce rational behavior to pursuit of self-regarding wants. But methodological individualism assumes a mistaken individualist notion of rationality. Prisoner's dilemma's actually show that there are collective goods that can't be reached through individual voluntary transactions. But it is well known that the best options for peoople in a given situation may be unreachable via market transactions, due to lack of coordination (prisioner's dilemmas), free rider problems, transaction costs to building coalitions, etc. This is indeed an argument against the efficiency of capitalism.

People don't just have self-regarding wants, that is a mistaken theory of personal motivation. People also identify with various collectivities -- their family, nation or ethnic community, class, union, campaign they are a part of. There are many situations where people identify with a "we" and collectivities can deliberate together and come up with a decision that is rational in terms of collective, deliberative rationality, even if it can't be reduced to individual rationality.

The methods that humans are equipped with by evolution are not perfect for reaching the most likely solution to a problem. There is no reason to think that evolution would make us perfect. Evolution only finds traits that help to survive in the actual situation. Doesn't follow that the working class doesn't have the capacity to liberate itself from the system of class oppression. Especially given that capitalism is driving the species towards extinction through ecological destruction.

[Dr Mindbender]

Originally posted by la-troy+--> (la-troy)Just stating that people know capitalism. for some thats all they know, they don't know of any other system. so naturally they feel more secure in it than any other system[/b]
that doesnt make it the best system, or even the best. Most people have been beaten into a state of apathetic nihilism by the system. Many of whom dont even know an alternative way of living is living because they havent got equal access to the educational ladder. This isnt just undemocratic, it is criminal.

Originally posted by la-troy+--> (la-troy)
Some degree of risk yes. but what is riskier investing in a company that might fail, working for a company that might crash or starting a new system that in all honesty has had very limited success in history.[/b]
Its a matter of scale, and the historical reasons behind the failure of past communism are debateable to say the least.
Reactionaries say it cant work because of human nature, we say it cant co-exist alongside capitalism. Remove capitalism and the potential for failure is removed.

Originally posted by la-troy

Yes you know this and I know this. but the big difference between you, me and the average guy, well at least average guy in my country. is that you and i have studied communism.
Going back to my original point this isnt to say that he doesnt have the potential to learn about communism and has been denied the chance by the class heirarchy. There is a chauvinist delusion among the petit beourgiose that the working class do not have the capacity to learn Marxist theory for some intellectual poverty. This is not the case, I come from among the poorest of demographics in my country yet i have at least grasped the basics of the communist manifesto. I'd be lying if i said i understood everything, but i know enough to hold my end of the debate.

la-[email protected]

we have researched and examined scenarios and came up with our own understanding of communism and an appreciation for it, that the average man might not have, the only thing he may know about communism is that one guy controls everything or one party controls everything.
....yeah, and? :blink:

la-troy

Now remember what i said with the factory guy he has a fiar idea of what is going to happen. of course he might be laid off, his land lord evicts him, inflation goes up he cant afford food etc but in most developed and in developing countries there is some consistency. he works he makes money he pays bills and he tries to get by this is better than the unknown.
None of this hardship would be necessary under a proletarian controlled state.

It benefits no-one because the energy he dissipated getting back to square 1 would have been better spent on working on his own faculties, in turn creating a more studious and industrious worker which benefits society as a whole. Particulary if this one worker represents a mere sample within an entire demographic.

[Dean]

Originally posted by [email protected] 21, 2007 08:02 pm
publius:
Yes it is. Look up Kahneman's research on risk aversion.

People will refuse economically good deals.

Look at game theory, at things like the prisoner's dilemma.

If people were rational economic actors, they would act to maximize their own gain in both of these situations. But they usually they don't, because their rational economic decisions are overpowered by the risk and fear sectors of their brains.


You're assuming methodological individualism, which tries to reduce rational behavior to pursuit of self-regarding wants. But methodological individualism assumes a mistaken individualist notion of rationality. Prisoner's dilemma's actually show that there are collective goods that can't be reached through individual voluntary transactions. But it is well known that the best options for peoople in a given situation may be unreachable via market transactions, due to lack of coordination (prisioner's dilemmas), free rider problems, transaction costs to building coalitions, etc. This is indeed an argument against the efficiency of capitalism.

People don't just have self-regarding wants, that is a mistaken theory of personal motivation. People also identify with various collectivities -- their family, nation or ethnic community, class, union, campaign they are a part of. There are many situations where people identify with a "we" and collectivities can deliberate together and come up with a decision that is rational in terms of collective, deliberative rationality, even if it can't be reduced to individual rationality.

The methods that humans are equipped with by evolution are not perfect for reaching the most likely solution to a problem. There is no reason to think that evolution would make us perfect. Evolution only finds traits that help to survive in the actual situation. Doesn't follow that the working class doesn't have the capacity to liberate itself from the system of class oppression. Especially given that capitalism is driving the species towards extinction through ecological destruction.
Well said; I was going to respond with a similar argument until I saw yours.

I'm just going to add that, in reference to game theory, the only people who have been found to act "rationally" have been sociopaths and economists. That's really not much of a surprise.

[Lynx]

Originally posted by [email protected] 21, 2007 04:02 pm
The methods that humans are equipped with by evolution are not perfect for reaching the most likely solution to a problem. There is no reason to think that evolution would make us perfect. Evolution only finds traits that help to survive in the actual situation. Doesn't follow that the working class doesn't have the capacity to liberate itself from the system of class oppression. Especially given that capitalism is driving the species towards extinction through ecological destruction.
Would are those evolutionary methods?
Abductive reasoning, deference to authority, instinct?
Historically, humans have needed to be able to quickly analyze a situation and make a decision.

[Publius]

it is capitalism that preserves those 'irrational motives'. By replacing the existing status quo with one where the primary onus is not wealth accumulation, the ones you refer to will have an easier time conforming to your 'rational economic thought'

Not really. The problem is that humans are just poor judges of risk. They err on the side of caution too much when making economic decisions, that is, they are "risk averse." Even when taking a risk is likely to be a good deal, humans often refuse. Also humans often refuse to accept a loss, which usually means they end up losing more.

This isn't caused by capitalism, but by how humans think of economic decisions. I believe they've found out that other primates behave this way.

[Publius]

You're assuming methodological individualism, which tries to reduce rational behavior to pursuit of self-regarding wants. But methodological individualism assumes a mistaken individualist notion of rationality. Prisoner's dilemma's actually show that there are collective goods that can't be reached through individual voluntary transactions. But it is well known that the best options for peoople in a given situation may be unreachable via market transactions, due to lack of coordination (prisioner's dilemmas), free rider problems, transaction costs to building coalitions, etc. This is indeed an argument against the efficiency of capitalism.

Indeed. But the problem is, communitarian systems assume a level of interdependence that I think might be impossible.



People don't just have self-regarding wants, that is a mistaken theory of personal motivation. People also identify with various collectivities -- their family, nation or ethnic community, class, union, campaign they are a part of. There are many situations where people identify with a "we" and collectivities can deliberate together and come up with a decision that is rational in terms of collective, deliberative rationality, even if it can't be reduced to individual rationality.

But certainly groups can act irrationally too, and they quite often do when it comes to their economic interest.

IF they did, everyone would be in unions, because unions provide a means by which to artificially limit the supply of labor, to the benefit of the members.

It's in workers class interests to be in unions, and yet it seems that most American workers HATE unions. That means they're buying what (God help me) can only be regarded as bourgeois propaganda.



The methods that humans are equipped with by evolution are not perfect for reaching the most likely solution to a problem. There is no reason to think that evolution would make us perfect. Evolution only finds traits that help to survive in the actual situation. Doesn't follow that the working class doesn't have the capacity to liberate itself from the system of class oppression. Especially given that capitalism is driving the species towards extinction through ecological destruction.

I just think that the last 150 years or so have shown that the prospects of a worldwide proletarian revolution are unlikely.

It should have happened by now, by my thinking. I mean, it's in people's interests right now, isn't it?

[syndicat]

It's in workers class interests to be in unions, and yet it seems that most American workers HATE unions.

Actually polls indicate that 58% of workers would prefer to be in unions. Given the inadequacies of American unions, that is a testimony to workers' understanding of the importance of collective action in dealing with employers.

That they aren't is due to things like firing union supporters, and other forms of intimidation and threats, as well as failures of unions to organize. Anti-union consultantcies are a billion dollar business.

[Demogorgon]

Originally posted by [email protected] 21, 2007 03:29 am
I've always thought that it did, that Marx taught that people behave according to their class interest, that class, and individuals in classes, act to what's best for themselves, etc.

But we now know, due to some pretty good science, that people are not rational economic actors at all. At best this is an approximation, at worst it's a distortion. So what does this say about Marxism? How can classes be expected to act rationally, in their interest when the individuals that comprise them can't be expected to do so? We often hear about "the wisdom of the crowd", but very often the crowd is stupid and wrong.

What basis, then, do we have for assuming that the working class can or will band together to form a global revolution? Does that require a level of universal rationality that people simply do not have?
It is a very good question, but remember, people can only act in what they believe to be their best interests at the time. The notion that people are always rational e onomic actors of course fails because people will not necessarilly act in their objective best interest. But I think it is fair to say they at least think at the time they are doing what is best, even if to an outside observer they blatantly aren't.

Fortunately for the world in general and indeed Marxism in particular it doesn't mean people are acting randomnly or that they always get it wrong. People will still manage to act in a manner at least vaguely in their clas interests. And if you take a large group of people there should at least be a trend towards them acting in a "rational" manner. Nobody says that everyone has to be acting rationally all the time for a class of people to tend towards rational action. For example I would argue that while it is spectacularly easy to find examples of individual members of the bourgoisie acting in a manner hilariously out of step with their interests, be it personal interests or class interests, as a group they have been very skilled in doing precisely what is best for them, as their dominant position testifies too.

Don't forget as well the Marxian idea of false consciousness. That can be very significant in explaining why people fail to act in their class interests.

[Die Neue Zeit]

Originally posted by syndicat+October 21, 2007 01:02 pm--> (syndicat @ October 21, 2007 01:02 pm) Prisoner's dilemma's actually show that there are collective goods that can't be reached through individual voluntary transactions. But it is well known that the best options for people in a given situation may be unreachable via market transactions, due to lack of coordination (prisoner's dilemmas), free rider problems, transaction costs to building coalitions, etc. This is indeed an argument against the efficiency of capitalism. [/b]
In some of my finance exposure I've learned bits and pieces of behavioural finance, including the stuff you mentioned. I'll add two other aspects to this discussion: perfect information and information asymmetry. Within a financial context, there are "dialectical" tensions between relevance and reliability in regards to information quality.


Actually polls indicate that 58% of workers would prefer to be in unions. Given the inadequacies of American unions, that is a testimony to workers' understanding of the importance of collective action in dealing with employers.

That they aren't is due to things like firing union supporters, and other forms of intimidation and threats, as well as failures of unions to organize. Anti-union consultancies are a billion-dollar business.

Source for your poll?

Anyhow, the problem is that they themselves aren't doing anything about collective action. This, in many ways, is worse than merely having a "trade-union consciousness." As material conditions progress, of course (such as reverse outsourcing), their actions will become more resolute, but alas, never enough to trigger a uncoordinated (ie, spontaneous) revolution.


Demogorgon
Don't forget as well the Marxian idea of false consciousness. That can be very significant in explaining why people fail to act in their class interests.

This last remark of course leads straight into the "vanguard party" concept. :)

[la-troy]

When did i ever say it was the best system? the only thing i was saying or trying to say was that capitalism is what the people know so it wont be so they wont be so willing to completely give it up for a system that they don't know. I don't know about you but my access to socialist literature is very limited.


Its a matter of scale, and the historical reasons behind the failure of past communism are debateable to say the least.

yes they are my friend but even for us it would be a tiring and extensive subject. How many people do you know that are willing to study this? for me not a lot of persons. And are you suggesting that communism without capitalism cannot fail? I do not agree there are many factors that might contribute to the failure of a commune, I would say though that there would be less reason for it to fail.


Going back to my original point this isnt to say that he doesnt have the potential to learn about communism and has been denied the chance by the class heirarchy. There is a chauvinist delusion among the petit beourgiose that the working class do not have the capacity to learn Marxist theory for some intellectual poverty. This is not the case, I come from among the poorest of demographics in my country yet i have at least grasped the basics of the communist manifesto. I'd be lying if i said i understood everything, but i know enough to hold my end of the debate.

When I said average guy i was not trying to single out a class. I would never say that the working class cannot learn Marxism, also I am not petite bourgeois i come from a mainly peasant background with a little petite bourgeois but i belong to one of the poorest demographics in my country( if i manage to pay of my student loans debts i would be your regular rags to riches story lol). anyways what i was saying is that not a lot of people study Marxism some yes are never afforded the opportunity yes but others just don't want to. They don't see anything outside of capitalism, to them it is all there is. for them to switch to capitalism you have to convince them to study it and then convince them to use it. not a easy task.


None of this hardship would be necessary under a proletarian controlled state.

Again the problem is itt is the prol that have to make this decision and it is for them to decide if it is worth taking the risk. and I'm sure if you approach the issue from some one who has not really studied communism you will see that a switch to communism is very risky.

[wogboy]

Originally posted by [email protected] 21, 2007 03:29 am
I've always thought that it did, that Marx taught that people behave according to their class interest, that class, and individuals in classes, act to what's best for themselves, etc.

But we now know, due to some pretty good science, that people are not rational economic actors at all. At best this is an approximation, at worst it's a distortion. So what does this say about Marxism? How can classes be expected to act rationally, in their interest when the individuals that comprise them can't be expected to do so? We often hear about "the wisdom of the crowd", but very often the crowd is stupid and wrong.

What basis, then, do we have for assuming that the working class can or will band together to form a global revolution? Does that require a level of universal rationality that people simply do not have?
People often do what is, unfortunately, not in their best interest. It may be some time later that they realise it was a mistake. Often, its only in hindsight that we can see that the initial decision was irrational one.

People are not all born with the same level of intellect, and hence we often make decisons simply because we "trust" someone. A mass of people is reassuring and I think people can be swept into something they are not fully informed about.

Information is the key. The idea is that more information leads peopel to make better decisions. On a larger scale, who has monopoly control of media is very influential and can lead people to do things that they otherwise would not do. The media can fool so many people.

There is also the concept of alturism. When making a decision, how many individuals exist that would sacrifice some benefit to themselves, for the benefit of another person?