It’s been almost a century and a half since Karl Marx’s death, and decades since the collapse of socialism in the Soviet Union, Yugoslavia and elsewhere. In the still nominally…View Post
They also are going full "crab-bucket" mode, Thatcher and Ayn Rand would be proud:
Marx also underestimated the problem of free riding among the working class and instead wrongly attributed working-class division and passivity to false consciousness (a semi-conspiratorial, quasi-Freudian notion). In fact, as Mancur Olson has argued in The Logic of Collective Action, under normal circumstances, workers have no compelling reason to take part in a revolution. The chances of an individual worker tilting the scales are extremely small. The revolution will succeed or fail regardless of what she, personally, decides to do. So, she’s better off simply staying on the sidelines and not risking getting arrested or killed. If the revolution succeeds, she’ll still enjoy its benefits, if any—say, expanded democratic rights or the abolition of exploitation—even if she didn’t participate in it
Though didn't we see from the evil Soviet Union that people who didn't partake in the revolution did better, but also worse after? Revolution is not a single turn prisoner dilemma, it is a no prisoner multi stage game, which means that people are aware of what you did.
However from organizing we know that "The Logic of Collective Action" isn't that one worker doesn't tip the scales, it is that workers are path diagrams, every worker influences the conditions and some will create non linear effects, especially after a tipping point. This means that during collective action and revolution the impact of single people can be exceptional. The econ "we linearize everything" and look at things as static dogma once again ruined the point the author (and his source) could've made.
Assuming most workers are rational, one would expect large-scale revolutionary collective action to be an uncommon phenomenon: no “false consciousness” is necessary to explain this.
Or the author is just and not as rational and intelligent as he thinks. "Rational" in the sense he uses is also the propaganda term for econ bros who didn't take the time to think stuff through a tenth as much as did.
It gets even worse:
But supply and demand are themselves directly determined by people’s personal wants and preferences, as expressed through their purchasing decisions
Yeah, critiquing Marx with a smudged electron microscope and using econ 101 theory blindfolded and gagged.
They also are going full "crab-bucket" mode, Thatcher and Ayn Rand would be proud:
Though didn't we see from the evil Soviet Union that people who didn't partake in the revolution did better, but also worse after? Revolution is not a single turn prisoner dilemma, it is a no prisoner multi stage game, which means that people are aware of what you did.
However from organizing we know that "The Logic of Collective Action" isn't that one worker doesn't tip the scales, it is that workers are path diagrams, every worker influences the conditions and some will create non linear effects, especially after a tipping point. This means that during collective action and revolution the impact of single people can be exceptional. The econ "we linearize everything" and look at things as static dogma once again ruined the point the author (and his source) could've made.
Or the author is just
and not as rational and intelligent as he thinks. "Rational" in the sense he uses is also the propaganda term for econ bros who didn't take the time to think stuff through a tenth as much as 
did.
It gets even worse:
Yeah, critiquing Marx with a smudged electron microscope and using econ 101 theory blindfolded and gagged.