Nick Cohen on Thomas Frank

[Charles Brown <cbrown@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Well, as I said, the superprofits/proletarian
aristocracy theory does not seem to be a good theory
even on a rational choice theoretic approach.

^^^^^
CB: Why doesn't it seem to be a good theory (not based on rational choice
theoretic approach)?

^^^

The
"Kansas" phenomenon that Franks describes involves
people who do not think they are affluent and
protecting their wealth, rather who know they are not
affluent, who resent the wealthy liberal elites, and
who identify cultural issuesa s being highly salient.

^^^^
CB: Do they think they are better off than non-Americans ? Probably yes.

Here's a rational explanation of these seemingly contradictory expressions.
The "Kansans" know that they better off than most of the world, but not as
well off as the rich in the U.S. But to improve their lot is not worth the
risk of revolt. They express their anger at the rich in the U.S. only at the
"liberal" rich ( ignoring the conservative rich or pretending as if they are
not rich ). This is the outlet for their anger at being exploited by the
U.S. rich. But they don't express in an overthrow the system manner ,
because, when all is said and done, they are in the richest and most power
country in the world, and they get a trickle down from that that makes them
better off than just about everybody else in the world. And in part their
privilege comes from what American businesses _do_ around the world.

Their illusions function rationally in relation to not rocking the boat, and
letting off a little class struggle steam.

It might be clearer to you than I that "liberal" here is the classic
"Jewish" scapegoat "capitalist", with some literal overlap in that the
typical "US liberal" is "from NYC".

But this gives the "Kansan" an escape/cover story. That's rational too.
Rationalizing.


^^^^^^^^^


Btw, doesn't it seem funny to you to think you
aretreating people as rational actors if you ascribe
to them manifestly irrational beliefs about their
social status? Why is it better to have irrational
beliefs that one is well off and benefits economically
by imperialism than irrational beliefs about the
country being dominated by rich liberal reporters from
New York and gay Hollywood actors?

^^^^^^^

CB: It doesn't seem odd to me yet. Let me see what are you saying ? It could
be that I was half-joking when I threw in that "rational man" reference.

 I can't quite get how I was attributing to them manifestly irrational
beliefs about their social status. I'm saying they have somewhat accurate
beliefs about their social status. They just choose to deal with that status
differently than we lefties are recommending. They are in between
"Republicans" and the "foreign minions" and they know this status. They
rather be top assistant to the top ones, the Reps ( Dems are junior
partners)and enjoy their status as better than most of the rest of the
world. This might be called ruthless or something (craven ?), but it's not
exactly irrational.

They are sort of like Sambo. You know Sambo ? He is the Black overseer for
the Master. He's worse off than the Master, but better off than the rest of
the slaves. Sambo is a slave who joins up with the master against the other
slaves, because on balance he gets a better deal in the sense of a higher
social and economic status than the other slaves.

^^^^^^^




Anyway, I'm probably way more sympathetic to rational
choice theory than most here -- I have written in the
analytical Marxist manner and defended decision
theoretic modeling and even the use of neoclassical
economics and game theory in radical social analysis.

^^^^^
CB: Yes, I wasn't entirely serious when I said Kansans were acting like
rationally self-interested men (sic). I was sort of being ironic...

^^^^^

But I think it well never to forget for an instant
that the rational economic actor is an idealization
and an abstraction, a craeture of (really) bourgeois
economics) that does not describe actual human
psychology. Good thing for us on the left, because the
rational economic actor would never engage in
solidariric collective behavior such as a strike or a
picket line, much less anything more militant.

^^^^^
CB: Well,the capitalists and rational choice theorists think its not in a
worker's rational self-interest ever to strike or picket, but we might be
able to make an argument that it is in a worker's overall rational
self-interest to strike or picket, I'd think. I guess the rational choice
theorists probably _define_ strikes as irrational, maybe , though ?

^^^^^^


Odd that you, the professed orthodox Marxist-Leninist,
should insist on this essentially bourgeois economic
model. Marx's whole theory of ideology is designed to
explain in part why it does not necessarily operate on
real people -- why people behave irrationally in the
sense that they act against their own economic
interests.

Jks

^^^^^^
CB: The reason it is "odd" is that I was making a joke about the "rational
man" because I know about you and rational self-choice work and this is an
economics list. But in a more general rather than term of art sense, the
Kansans are acting like wily , rational choosers.



Here's what I see in the ideology here. The "Kansans" have enough decency
that they can't just come right out and say, "hey, we don't want to take the
hard, long, dangerous route of overthrowing this whole system so that we can
get equal with the rich people in this country, so we'll just go along with
the rich people's foreign policy toward all the weird and wonderful folks
around the world, and the policies toward some people in the U.S. so that we
can get a pretty good life by world standards, and we'll help the rich too,
because we get a cut." They can't say that. So they say " it's the rich
liberals who are "oppressing" us, so we have to vote for the conservatives
who will protect our way of life from the liberals, gays, et al. "


In other words, Kansans are crazy/irrational like foxes. The ideology is
more of a cover story than a confused or "irrational" state of mind. The
ideology is a rationalization or perhaps more accurately a euphemism. The
whole rap about conservative positions on social issues is a euphemism for
playing the Sambo role. Their claim to be defending and aspiring to virtues
is a euphemism for settling for the crumbs from the capitalist table, for
trickle down from imperialism.

I might add that the "Kansans" are also under the stick as well as the thin
carrot. The bourgeoisie have ways of dealing with Communists in Kansas. So,
this adds another dimension of "rational self-interest" to the Kansans'
strategy to deal with this veil of tears.