The irrational in politics
- This topic has 8 replies, 6 voices, and was last updated 8 years, 12 months ago by
.
-
Posts
-
Quite a thought provoking peice on the influence of irrational factors in politics….
http://phys.org/news/2015-05-political-myths-entrench.html
What are the implications for us socialists who pride ourselves on our ultra-rationalism?
Well it was dismissed as anti socialist claptrap on here but Harold walsby made this point way back in 1949
jondwhite wrote:Well it was dismissed as anti socialist claptrap on here but Harold walsby made this point way back in 1949Problem is, though, that while Walsby's rather contrived and rigid functionalist hierarchy (or pyramid) or ideological types may well be a load of codswallop (and in my opinion, it is) this does not in any way invalidate the more general point being made here – that we are all subject to irrational influences and that a political style that basis itself on a purely rational approach is in a sense foredoomed to make little progress unless, as it were, it takes on or addresses those influences on their own terms. That is to say, unless it incorporates an element of "irrationalism" itself and thereby becomes more effectively able to appeal to workers on a more rounded basis and not simply regard them as mere self-interested calculating machines (which is actually what lies behind this "rationalist" paradigm). How often has one come across the reason offered as why an individual decided to join the Socialist Party: "I came across a copy of the Socialist Standard. I couldn't argue against what it was saying. It made a lot of sense to me. So I was persuaded and subsequently joined the Socialist Party…" Its a caricature, I know, but what this hypothetical example does point to and highlight is the crucial importance attached to rationality in the role of the Party in propagating socialist ideas. That in turn links up with other basic motifs commonly found in the literature – such as that socialism is a question of our economic class interests rather than a question of , say, moral indignation or that the approach of socialists to society is a "scientific" one that is value free and objective (I know I know I'm beginning to sound like LBird , god help me) or (my particular bugbear with the Party) that you can't possibly entertain the idea of admitting into Party, a socialist who holds some vague religious ideas but in all other respects is clearly socialist, because he or she is irredeemably tainted with sin of embracing irrationalism….etc etc This way of thinking goes all the way back to people like Rudolf Hilferding, who wrote in the preface to his work Finanzkapital (1910):The theory of Marxism, as well as its practice is free from judgments of value. It is therefore false to conceive, as is widely done, intra et extra muros, that Marxism and socialism are as such identical. For logically, regarded as a scientific system and apart from its historical effect, Marxism is only a theory of the laws of movement of society formulated in general terms by the Marxian conception of history; the Marxian economics applying in particular to the period of commodity-producing society It makes what we are arguing for sound like something that will be introduced by a bunch of white coated scientists… Don't get me wrong . I'm not saying saying socialists should repudiate rationality in favour of irrationality or that we should reject the notion that socialism is in our class interests in favour of the notion that it is a moral imperative. What I am saying is that we should incorporate both sides of this equation into our propaganda and practice What that might mean in practical terms I am not quite sure which is why I started this thread – to initiate some discussion on it. The point is though that if individuals are significantly affected by irrational factors – and the link I gave at the outset strongly suggests this is the case – then how do we adapt our strategy to take this into account? We cant just ignore this. If the case is so overwhelmingly strong and logical (and I believe it is) why are more workers not joining the socialist movement? Its not just because they haven't heard of us . Thats a feeble excuse. The vast majority who have heard of us still don't join. Why? Walsby came up with a reason but I think his basic argument was crap – an unconvincing and speculative schema based on a functionalist sociology. Incidentally the title of this thread I took from the pamphlet written by Maurice Brinton in 1970 . See here https://www.marxists.org/archive/brinton/1970/irrational-politics.htm. I'm not quite sure whether I go along with what he is saying but he does make some interesting points
These kinds of studies have implications for all human beings, not just the "irrational" ones out there who for some strange reason just won't accept my brilliant ideas. So the best thing to do after reading them (see especially the work of Daniel Kahneman) is not to think, "Hmm, folks are irrational, so how on earth can I get them to accept my supremely ultra-rational ideology", but rather to hold up a mirror, and think, "Hmm, now just what in all this shit cluttering up my brain is irrational, deluded, subject to cognitive biases of all kinds, merely the result of tradition and conditioning, of repeating unthinkingly the ideas of others, etc, etc?" A very very close look might lead to something like humility.
PS Anyone having trouble with the idea that socialists might be lacking in rationality should go over and have a look at the Russell Brand thread. Apparently, his advocating a vote for Labour, an infallibly rational position given his politics and outlook, is explained there in basically conspiratorial terms – perhaps he's been bought, he's a dupe, he's a puppet for the ruling class, he's a naive fool, a self-serving opportunist looking out for his own career, etc, etc.
What is the point in trying to rationalise the irrational? Such negative discussions go round and round in circles and still come out the other end puzzled, perplexed and confused and dare I say it – irrational in their conclusions?
In short everybody is (to steal the name of a book by Dan Ariely) "predictably irrational". We are all prone to make the same kinds of cognitive errors because we all share the same kind of brains. We prefer stories to statistics, we seek to confirm – not question – our ideas, we rarely appreciate the role of chance and coincidence in shaping events, we sometimes misperceive the world around us, we tend to oversimplify our thinking and we have faulty memories. (I stole these 6 points from Thomas Kida)Being aware of this doesn't make us immune but it does give us a good guideline on how to deal with our own and other peoples thinking…
Isn't it conspiratorial, Stuart, to infer we all agreed with some of the opinions offered on the motives of Brand.My first personal observation was that it was yet another example of opting for the lesser evil, and repeated in a following message, scarcely subscribing to a conspiracy-dominated response.But you will note i do cuncur with the belief that he is not personally politically savvy if he cannot see through the "sincerity" of "Red Ed" if we take his reasons offered in his Trews at its word and don't go looking between the lines…I certainly think it raises not questions just for Brand but for ourself…How are we not treated as credible …At one time in history political parties such as we (and i now include broadly all those who at one time did propose socialism) were seen as a viable alternative…We will get 0.2% of the ballot (going on past elections)…Eugene Debs got 12% on a gerry-mandered suffrage…And the ILP seemed to have hit the right chords and that was a helluva long time ago…i don't think anyone votes for Galloway as a socialist so we can discount his popularity and success…I can be cynical as we all can be by saying …we seen them come …we seen them go…yet we still remain…And if you been following my pessimistic posts elsewhere, you know i don't hold out much of a future for that status either….we are heading towards extinction…to join the SLP…Unless we statrt asking questions and start getting answers…You always been quite pertinent in your critiques, even if you and i didn't agree…so i hope you will be one of other ex- and non-members who offer some input in a re-appraisal of our politics and its presentation…or have you missed the posts where i have been urging a special post-election conference to discuss not just the result but the core messages we should be giving.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.