Many political disputes in the past few years have been framed as battles between economic rationality and eruptions of irrationality that we label populism, but cognitive psychologists and economists would point out that political irrationality is hardly confined to populist insurgents. As a general matter, most political leaders are focused on practical matters and do not necessarily think deeply about the ideas they expound.
Among the early modern cartographers of political irrationality was Vilfredo Pareto, who died 100 years ago, on Aug. 19, 1923. Born in 1848, that year of liberal hope (and revolution) across Europe, Pareto died after witnessing the liberal order’s demise and the tragedy of World War I. Nowadays, his name pops up most often in references to “Pareto optimality,” when no further action can be taken to benefit someone without harming someone else, or the “Pareto principle,” the idea that about 80 percent of outcomes stem from only 20 percent of causes.
It is hard to imagine Pareto betting that he would be remembered for these ideas. His father, an engineer, had bequeathed him a scientific and mathematical education, and he had applied that to a managerial career that kept him busy into his 40s.
While still in business, he involved himself in liberal politics in Florence, Italy, where he became a pugnacious polemicist and learned economist. Eager for his voice to be heard, he corresponded with French economists and published in their language, always taking pains to develop contacts wherever he could. He wrote to Britain’s Liberal prime minister, William Gladstone, and Gladstone wrote back.
Among his many correspondents, the most frequent was Maffeo Pantaleoni, a career academic 10 years his junior, but far more accomplished when the two of them started to exchange letters. Pareto expressed appreciation for an essay by Pantaleoni, but he had spotted a few flaws in it. Instead of reacting grudgingly, Pantaleoni quickly discerned that his pen pal was a genius. He duly kept all his letters and was instrumental in Pareto’s move to academia.
In 1893, Pareto succeeded Leon Walras, a founder of neoclassical economics, in his chair at the University of Lausanne in Switzerland.
There, Pareto embraced teaching vigorously, but his enthusiasm for economics faded. He wanted to move to sociology, because he had come to see human life as dominated by illogical actions. Having already played a considerable role in formalizing modern economics, he would soon also end up at the fountainhead of 20th-century political science and sociology.
As a young man, Pareto saw free trade as obviously beneficial to all, and military spending as detrimental to many. Yet his own country, Italy, moved away from free trade and embarked on extravagant, brutal colonial expansions. While Pareto was quick to diagnose this behavior as the result of influence by special interests, he wondered why so many other people went along with it.
The function of political ideologies, as Pareto saw it, was to put lipstick on a pig. The fundamental nature of politics is that somebody rules and many more obey — and not even democracy can change that.
However, the fact that somebody must rule does not mean that the same people rule forever. On the contrary, history is a cemetery of defunct ruling classes. When a ruling class becomes too self-referential and incapable of integrating new elements, its time is up.
Pareto did not think that history and politics could be understood from the self-serving narratives of the protagonists. Rather, developments should be subjected to a scientific inquiry that goes beyond the surface of “derivations,” not stopping at the reasons people provide to explain their own behavior. Pareto understood that people’s actions stem from deep-rooted motives — what he called “residues” — which they then must rationalize. We are all constantly inventing justifications to make the non-rational appear rational.
Pareto saw “rationalism” as just another “intellectual religion,” and intellectuals as no less susceptible to pseudoscientific creeds than anybody else.
The next time you scroll through your social media feed, consider whether all those advocating “right” causes have actually thought deeply about them. How many have actually read all the literature they cite, or engaged with opposing views? Often, what we think is contingent on our need to belong.
In politics, two “residues” (triggers of action) are of paramount importance. On the one hand, there are “rentiers” who value stability, oppose change and newcomers, and tend to live on land rent or fixed income. Pareto characterizes their “residue” as the “persistence of aggregates” — such as customs, traditions, social classes and so forth.
On the other hand, there are “speculators,” who thrive on change and the pursuit of innovation, but who also tend to manipulate government for their own ends. Pareto describes their “residue” as the “instinct for combination,” which suggests an ability to invent ever-new things.
Rentiers and speculators are necessary for a country to thrive, but Pareto saw the second category as more likely to gain control of society, particularly when government is expanding. They are at home in large-scale, ambitious “schemes” — regardless of whether the aim is to win a war, reduce inequality or make bureaucracy more efficient.
Pareto’s sketches of the world before World War I resemble the world we live in now. He saw financial engineering at the service of government as basically fraudulent; he ridiculed those who believed that taxes were a fee we pay for services; and he regarded inflation and public debt as instruments for “plundering” specific segments of the population.
In the long run, governments do not pay their debts, and they will tax people as much as they can. Speculators are better at surfing the wave and profiting from these tendencies, whereas rentiers (or pensioners and others on fixed incomes) are more likely to end up paying the bill.
Today more than ever, politics is about believing and belonging. Polarization has made the right and the left into ardent champions of their respective causes. Both believe that if they do not win, the world will go to the dogs. Public intellectuals today are fully invested in this rhetoric.
Of course, Pareto himself was a man of passions who ardently believed in liberty and tolerance. Yet he somehow forced his political realism on himself, not in the service of some fetish for neutrality, but because he saw lucidity as his ultimate duty.
Alberto Mingardi, an associate professor of the history of political thought at IULM University, is director-general of the Istituto Bruno Leoni in Milan, Italy.
Copyright: Project Syndicate
Congratulations to China’s working class — they have officially entered the “Livestock Feed 2.0” era. While others are still researching how to achieve healthy and balanced diets, China has already evolved to the point where it does not matter whether you are actually eating food, as long as you can swallow it. There is no need for cooking, chewing or making decisions — just tear open a package, add some hot water and in a short three minutes you have something that can keep you alive for at least another six hours. This is not science fiction — it is reality.
In a world increasingly defined by unpredictability, two actors stand out as islands of stability: Europe and Taiwan. One, a sprawling union of democracies, but under immense pressure, grappling with a geopolitical reality it was not originally designed for. The other, a vibrant, resilient democracy thriving as a technological global leader, but living under a growing existential threat. In response to rising uncertainties, they are both seeking resilience and learning to better position themselves. It is now time they recognize each other not just as partners of convenience, but as strategic and indispensable lifelines. The US, long seen as the anchor
Kinmen County’s political geography is provocative in and of itself. A pair of islets running up abreast the Chinese mainland, just 20 minutes by ferry from the Chinese city of Xiamen, Kinmen remains under the Taiwanese government’s control, after China’s failed invasion attempt in 1949. The provocative nature of Kinmen’s existence, along with the Matsu Islands off the coast of China’s Fuzhou City, has led to no shortage of outrageous takes and analyses in foreign media either fearmongering of a Chinese invasion or using these accidents of history to somehow understand Taiwan. Every few months a foreign reporter goes to
The war between Israel and Iran offers far-reaching strategic lessons, not only for the Middle East, but also for East Asia, particularly Taiwan. As tensions rise across both regions, the behavior of global powers, especially the US under the US President Donald Trump, signals how alliances, deterrence and rapid military mobilization could shape the outcomes of future conflicts. For Taiwan, facing increasing pressure and aggression from China, these lessons are both urgent and actionable. One of the most notable features of the Israel-Iran war was the prompt and decisive intervention of the US. Although the Trump administration is often portrayed as
RSS