Re: -Reply -Reply

[LAURA EBERT <EBERT@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Laura Ebert says: "So it is true your detrministic 'puppet' view of
humanity is a convenient way of dismissing entirely the problematic of
having to account for the obvious complexity of human behavior..."
_________________________

then Ajit said:

" My point was to show that for the economic reproduction of capitalism
as a mode of production, it is required that its agents act in certain ways;
and that in different modes of production different forms of ideology and
ideological appratuses are used to produce such subjectivities in its
actors. Imagin what will happen if all the schools begin to teach nothing
but anarchyism and the families taught disrespect for fathers. Do you
think capitalism will survive? I think not."

Dear Ajiit,
I'm in agreement with both "replys" by Nadler and J. Devine.  Mr. Nadler
states questions of humanness should not be so quickly considered
beyond the realm of economic .... and Mr. Devine states, or rather
restates your point  but also  seems to favor further development of
what Marx did consider about humaness type questions ....

 I would go even further and say such questions should be central to
much of economic analysis and not rejected just because "rational actor
models" of the standard neo-classical type are bogus (or in some ways).
Economics is about how resources are to be produced and distributed
for HUMAN SURVIVAL - cause unlike (to a matter of degree) animals that
is how our species reproduces itself.  Economics is not about MONEY
OR PROFIT, ULTIMATELY, but about the reproduction of the human
species.  As for Nadler's point - economists cannot dismiss this issue so
easily - as  psychological/philisophical - because economic decisions
"policy"... impacts human lives...etc.... Case in point: World Bank LDC
prescription during the 1980s was premised on the  "markets first"
mentality, and consequently it has been forced to recognize the human
side cannot be ignored - given the extent of unnecessary suffering
generated during the 1980s, especially among women,  a result of  SAP
blind to the  individual agent.  I'm not saying one cannot be concerned
about the individual from a group-class-community perspective, but that
SAP during the 1980s could have made a better difference maybe, just
maybe, if mainstream economic theory provided a better - userfriendly -
analysis of the "rational agent"  J. Devine is right, more is needed -
perceiving individuals placed between STRUCTURE and RATIONALITY
can be useful  - with a little DESIRE thrown in - but the present state of
the RAM with preferences, initial endowment, and relative prices... is not
good enough to account for ECONOMICALLY RELEVANT  behavior,  and
this also applies to Marxian analysis!  Attempts from any direction to
confront this problem are laudable  - but to say such issues do not
belong in the economic sphere, is certainly wrong... and I  would  also
argue .. that to say that it is enough to study the structure side ...
perceiving behavior as arsing to reproduce capitalist relations of
production.... is not enough.   And no I do think capitalism will collaspe if
children weren't taught to respect their fathers.... in fact it actually works
to a great extent to loosen the binds of  patriarchy!  How do you explain
that?

Per our previous discussion, of course, the distinction must be made
between "reality" and useful theory/analysis.... and I understand your
point that emphsizing STRUCTURE provides an "alternative" perspective
to the RAM...  But, I must say I think skirting the issue - or being satisfied
SOLELY with "THE" (your) alternative is not the only reasonable
response to RAM, but to take it head on and  try to find other ways to
provide  accounts of human behavior which are  more realistic yet at the
same time necessarily systematic/predictable -  that is afterall what
distinguishes us economists from other social scientists.

Have a nice day,
Laura