Debunking the Decision Making Process

Critique of practical doctrine on rational choice theory and productive force in political society

6 min readOct 13, 2020

No matter how much we insist on developing a good and happy life, it has often constantly focused on cognitive interest. This kind of objective development context, now interpreted as a ‘liberation’ from its converted essence. Marx challenged the dialectical nuance and reassumed its relationship to the economic turbulence that led, not only in an etymological sense, as well as debunking the developmental viewed of bourgeois society in the cognitive and practical force on today’s decision-making process. Consequently, at this time, it is the world’s becoming alienated stages of the dialectical allure of rational surplus.

So then, how do we cope with this purposive science practicality & productive forces transformation that makes us suffer daily?

Being Rational is Stupidly Irrational

Since we’ve consciously covered in advanced industrial society, we’ve also been forced to manage this peculiar consumptive function in a chain of consumer goods. This interlocked capitalism system displayed the dogmatic basis of our living path. On this faculty, having sets capabilities of determining risk upon this life path to become rational, substantial, and numerical is sound obligatory. But, for the sake of empty praises about here dogmatism, still, it has misunderstood as enlightenment at its finest circumstantial. In contrast, this misfortune arises as if transcended the visible world of micro-economy shapes of repression.

When it comes to objectifying empirical prejudice, yes, it has to be equivalent to suffering and frustrated happiness. This constellation reflected the paradoxical relationship between dogmatism, reason, and decision in which is equivalent to slavery. In the upshot, it is always cybernetically controlled by social science with the bourgeois development landscape.

Paul Thiry d’Holbach strived by his System of Nature that individuals study nature to attain power over an embodied practical dogmatism. This absurdity answered by Holbach that ‘decision’ itself has been painfully isolated by economy purposive-rational means and guaranteed by conditional predictions in the form of technical recommendations. Hence, the only admissible value at decision making choices reproduces by capitalist dogmatism is also layered by positivistic Kant enlightenment doctrine. In this sense, I determine this situation as positivistic isolation.

On this value system, a false rationalization filtered by empirical-scientific rationality is imposing subjective values. Consequently, individuals values seem like a senseless agglomeration of meaning and decreased. This level is also branded with the stigma of irrationality, which causes the disparity in life choice by the ruling class and technical authority by interlocked technology of the Capitalism system.

Be a rational human being is a subtle enslavement notion.

On the Oppression of Technological Rationality

These conceivable situations are expressed on efficiency behavior as accept or reject. This binary criterion is the value that we decided to be efficient and become rational human beings on a life basis. As we had supposed to spend our money, accepted the pressure to embraced by industrial doctrine, and leveraged our purchasing power to manage technologies. This implicit scenario demonstrated the process of practical doctrine and injecting the means of rational values, sadly, in the capitalist nuances on competitive bourgeois society.

This value could only be claimed by privilege status. It desired rationality procedure, combined with economic practicality references which contradict the traditional barriers in today’s society. This value system has been using autonomous technology to dictate the enormous traditional values ​​for violating citizen value-freedom. Oppressed by empirical science under capitalism, the feudal government system, and state corporations included.

To examine this critical status, which is affected by sets of the social decision-making process — I have been selected the four levels of rationalization in the decision-making process. I gradually ascertained it based on Marx and Habermas’s works, qualitatively, that insist on the practice power.

The first level, it syncs the empirical status that leads to possible rational behavior. This behavior directly practices the practical force to create the realm of productiveness. This circumstance heads us starve of given goals with pseudo successiveness nuance. Unusually, the subliminal value system using its standard of efficiency that refers to our decision making process. Undoubtedly, this kind of rationality doctrine forces us to create a cycle of oppression loop in labor classification and stuck in the Darwinian competitive trap. Instantly, we have suffered and becoming unethical kernel if we live jobless — unproductive human who’s lacking purpose.

On the first two level, we find that the practical force doctrine was designed the value system which had been justified by productive force. That process originated as a value system and hypothetically prescribe based on value sentiments. In this case, the subjectivistic decline of interest put sentiments upon the labeled of the single interest of functional authority. Therefore, we never are rational if we still living under the systemizing nation-state notions. Also, we’ve been tame by the superstructure mobilization of political society in neoliberalism social transactions. By the end, these collections of political interest might be superseded by technological and mode of production point of view by erasing individuals’ nature of directed goals simultaneously.

Third level rationalization deals with strategic situations. In these rational behavior methods, the decision-making instrument supposed to calculate the cumulative strategic form. Hobbes called this as a game-theoretical assumption, that has been generalized to all decision-making situations. It created functional goals that formalize quantitative goals and determine the traditional value system with the government generating self-programming algorithms to satisfy the basic value of survival and avoid risks. This field of cumulative strategy by computerization of the decision-making process, helped the political society to be more adaptive while operating a feedback-controlled system in civil society on machinery public sentiments.We could monitor this circumstance by looking at how our government working on the Twitter algorithm tucked a politically directed goal interface, spreading prejudice sentiments, and mobilize civil society private data to manage this self-proclaimed ‘rational administration agenda’.

Horst Rittel concluded that goals and functional utility were not independent variables. On the fourth level, homeostatic and self-programming machines are the form of liquid mass behavior control. In terms of reciprocal interaction, value systems couldn’t be regarded as stable over long periods in the political society of bourgeois landscapes. Surprisingly, those variables cannot determine as a central system in cybernetically rational behavior. As a result, the negative utopia of practical and rational force, hitherto, couldn’t objectify the processes of practical mastery of the historical process and shift to long term oppression by machinery extension of power abuse.

This writing is my summary of a critical essay on the idea of human rational behavior theory/rational choice theory, that, flourishing the process-oriented but still declining the historical-process credentials. Based on the decision-making process, using Hegel and Marx’s dialectical materialism intervention in the structure of the micro-economical crisis, I found the ambiguous of the rationalization in the democratic capitalist system ruling by political society. By that, I layered the multi-level of the rationalization process opposing practical force doctrine by Capitalism society that humiliated the individuals’ decision process.


  1. Paul Thiry d’Holbach, Nature and Her Laws (London, 1816).
  2. Karl Marx, Writings of the Young Marx on Philosophy and Society (Garden City, N.J., 1967).
  3. Karl Marx, A Contribution to the Critique of Hegel’s Philosophy of Right, Introduction (New York: Vintage Books, 1975).
  4. Jurgen Habermas, Tehnik and Wissenchaft als “Ideologie” in Toward Rational Society (Boston: Beacon Press, 1970).
  5. Johann G. Fichte, Werke, ed. Medicus (Darmstatt, 1962).
  6. John Dewey, The Quest for Certainty (New York, 1960).
  7. Martin Jay, The Dialectical Imagination (Boston: Little, Brown and Company, 1973).
  8. Chase VM, Hertwig R & Gigerenzer G, Visions of rationality, Trends in Cognitive Sciences (1998).