Re: Nick Cohen on Thomas Frank

[Marvin Gandall <marvgandall@xxxxxxxxxx>]

Andie Nachgeborenen wrote:

> Frank's __question_ is, why are people bring
> economically irrational? The "superprofits" theory,
> which I think does not fit the facts, dismisses
> Frank's question rather than answering it. Which is
> OK, but I'd rather see what economically irrational
> elements there are that might be going on here. I
> suspect on Theory of Ideology grounds, that people
> actually are often economically irrational. This has
> been a major theme in my own scholarly reserach and
> writing, so I havea  hobbyhorse to ride.
---------------------------------------
Frank's thesis, as I understand it, is that the Kansas workers are
'economically irrational" because, as among the most disadvantaged, they
should be more attracted to the Democratic economic programme than to the
Republicans.

But is it really the case that the working class in general acts against its
economic self-interest? It seems to be otherwise. The Democrats and
social-democratic parties tend to more popular among lower-income groups
because of their greater emphasis on spending programs which are a net
benefit to them. The nativist Republicans and conservative parties have a
particular appeal to the self-employed and others who resent paying higher
taxes to support programs which they perceive as aimed at the urban, often
immigrant and non-white, masses.

It's undoubtedly true that if the Democrats pushed universal health care  -
probably the most popular government program in advanced capitalist
countries - even the Kansas and other Republican workers would have a
material self-interest to switch party allegiances. Unfortunately, that's
not happening for a variety of political reasons which have been explored in
great detail on this list. Also, what may look economically self-defeating
behaviour is not always so. For example, when social programs are eroding
and wages stagnating, the Republican mantra of tax cuts can be appealing to
many workers who see it as the most realistic means of supplementing their
income. In responding this way, they may be wrong, but arguably not
"irrationally" so by ignoring their economic self-interest.

Of course, if you have an elevated definition of economic self-interest as
being the appropriation of power and property by the producers, then
obviously no one is acting rationally. But I don't expect that was what
Frank was getting at.

Finally, I wouldn't discount fear of being defeated by superior power,
rather than an irrational failure to understand and act in defence of
self-interest, as being a more important motive in human behaviour, both
individual and collective. Most trade unionists, for example, refrain from
striking not because they don't appreciate that better deals are the result
of economic coercion rather than employer generosity, but because they
calculate the balance of forces is not in their favour.

Marv Gandall