What if even though the car was out of gas, the driver thought for reason that the problem was with the engine oil and replaced that instead? Would that be rational or irrational?
From his perspective it is still rational. The point of the analogy was the “wrong decision” has an internal logic based on material conditions. His ideas of whether to use engine oil or push the car is not separate to the material but borne out of it.
The idea that ruling classes are not rational is an extension that we who apparently have insight also sit above the material rather than be borne of it. That is wrong.
Our wins may be different to the ruling classes but that does not make theirs any less rational to them. Especially given that is the same rationality that gave them the power in the first place; ie they have more personal evidence of wins than we do for ourselves (unless you live in a socialist country) - their lack of science compared to ours did not stop them from gaining leverage.
Either we have to concede that our truth is less than theirs. Or instead we understand that a more fuller understanding of reality is not sufficient to gain power, and it is in understanding that difference we do then gain power.
This difference is how we not undermine the enemy and minimise our chances of losing, and if we do lose then how we can better our chances of winning next time. Even if one of the enemy administrators is a guffawing buffoon.
What if even though the car was out of gas, the driver thought for reason that the problem was with the engine oil and replaced that instead? Would that be rational or irrational?
From his perspective it is still rational. The point of the analogy was the “wrong decision” has an internal logic based on material conditions. His ideas of whether to use engine oil or push the car is not separate to the material but borne out of it.
The idea that ruling classes are not rational is an extension that we who apparently have insight also sit above the material rather than be borne of it. That is wrong.
Our wins may be different to the ruling classes but that does not make theirs any less rational to them. Especially given that is the same rationality that gave them the power in the first place; ie they have more personal evidence of wins than we do for ourselves (unless you live in a socialist country) - their lack of science compared to ours did not stop them from gaining leverage.
Either we have to concede that our truth is less than theirs. Or instead we understand that a more fuller understanding of reality is not sufficient to gain power, and it is in understanding that difference we do then gain power.
This difference is how we not undermine the enemy and minimise our chances of losing, and if we do lose then how we can better our chances of winning next time. Even if one of the enemy administrators is a guffawing buffoon.