A question about objectivity in politics [Archive]

alexandra

Apr29-05, 12:39 PM

Hello all

I have been lurking on these boards for a while, and following some of the discussions in this forum as well as in the science and maths forums.

I have a question: I was just wondering whether anyone thinks that the kind of objectivity one pursues in scientific enquiry is also a worthwhile goal when trying to understand politics?

I mean, I have read various discussions in which people have said that scientific 'truths' and 'facts' are always provisional, and that 'facts' sometimes change in the light of new knowledge. I have read that scientific theories supported by individuals on this forum are re-evaluated in the light of new information. This is, in my view, as things should be.

But I have observed that this rule does not seem to be applied at all when the discussion is social or political. In social or political discussions, many of those people who claim to always be open to re-evaluating their scientific theories and beliefs in the light of new knowledge seem to actively resist re-evaluating their political and social views at all. They seem to refuse to consider any information that is presented to them that may contradict their views.

Does this mean that people believe that it is neither possible nor desirable to seek (at least provisional) political and social truths?

I consider my question to be political rather than philosophical (that is why I thought it fits best in this forum) because the answer to this question has real and important political implications - but I may be wrong about where I am posting this question (this is my first post). And my own view is based on my perception of myself as a social scientist (which means that I believe that it is possible - through honest and disciplined enquiry - to correctly interpret and evaluate social phenomena).

russ_watters

Apr29-05, 12:51 PM

I have a question: I was just wondering whether anyone thinks that the kind of objectivity one pursues in scientific enquiry is also a worthwhile goal when trying to understand politics? I have, a number of times, argued for the application of the scientific method to politics (and morality/ethics). As I often say, there is a reason why its called "Political Science". I mean, I have read various discussions in which people have said that scientific 'truths' and 'facts' are always provisional, and that 'facts' sometimes change in the light of new knowledge. I have read that scientific theories supported by individuals on this forum are re-evaluated in the light of new information. This is, in my view, as things should be. Quick clarification: theories are provisional, facts are not. Now, if you redo an experiment with better equipment, you can get more accurate data, but that isn't the same thing: the old data is still factual, but has an (at the time) unknown error in it. Scientists always try to minimize, predict, and explain their errors, but even an old, error filled experiment can provide useful insight.

Applied to history, take the US Constitution: What the US Constitution says historical fact. No amount of new information will change that. About the only thing that could is some kind of historical trickery, which would be akin to someone faking their experimental data in science. But I have observed that this rule does not seem to be applied at all when the discussion is social or political. In social or political discussions, many of those people who claim to always be open to re-evaluating their scientific theories and beliefs in the light of new knowledge seem to actively resist re-evaluating their political and social views at all. They seem to refuse to consider any information that is presented to them that may contradict their views. I agree, and it seems to me that the reason is that people think about politics and morality far too much like its religion. They also take it far more personally than they do science. With physics, for example, a scientist performs an experiment. In morality, each participant in the discussion is also part of the experiment. Does this mean that people believe that it is neither possible nor desirable to seek (at least provisional) political and social truths? As I said above - in my opinion it is both possible and desirable. We have had some success with the limited case of Marxism. Applying historical facts to the theory of Marxism reveals a theory that failed. That is somewhat well recieved, but people don't like to try to apply that method elsewhere. And my own view is based on my perception of myself as a social scientist (which means that I believe that it is possible - through honest and disciplined enquiry - to correctly interpret and evaluate social phenomena). In many ways, politics is an extension of sociology. To me, that's just self-evident (again - Marxism: it fails because it doesn't fit human nature).

Informal Logic

Apr29-05, 02:59 PM

There is a significant difference between the pure sciences and social sciences. Though some scientific method may be applied, for example trying to control for variables in conducting polls and applying statistical analysis in presentation of the results, ultimately the original topic/inquiry will be of a subjective nature. Politics, and especially moral issues are very subjective, and the majority of the population do not reach their conclusions based on fact. This is the unfortunate reality, and the lack of interest and prevailing ignorance of the general public has been debated in this forum many times as a problem to be studied in itself.

BobG

Apr29-05, 03:42 PM

Hello all
I have a question: I was just wondering whether anyone thinks that the kind of objectivity one pursues in scientific enquiry is also a worthwhile goal when trying to understand politics?

Only if you're trying to understand the politics of someone else's country. It's hard to maintain objectivity if the observer is part of the experiment - especially if the outcome of the experiment will have a definite impact on the observer.

alexandra

Apr30-05, 09:20 AM

I agree with everyone that it is more difficult to be objective when thinking about social and political issues (than it is in the sciences) because we are part of the situation we are trying to analyse.

russ_watters, while I agree with some of the things you say, I definitely and absolutely disagree with the statement that marxism is a 'theory that failed'. What historical evidence are you thinking of to support this claim? Do you mean the 'collapse' of the Eastern bloc? Or the fact that the 'worker's revolution' has not happened? Contrary to statements made by postmodernist theorists such as Fracis Fukuyama, history has definitely not 'ended' (as the various conflicts around the world so powerfully demonstrate).

This brings up another question: I am really curious about what you mean by 'Marxism' - do you refer to it as a method of analysis, or do you equate it with 'socialism' or 'communism'? So much depends on the definitions of terms.

I suspect we may be talking about different things when we disagree on this one. I have been studying marxism, and have been using marxism as a tool of analysis for studying the social and political world, for many years now. It remains an incredibly powerful tool of analysis and I have not yet found a theory that can better explain capitalist society (having read critical theory, functionalist theory, feminist theory, etc). Declaring 'marxism' irrelevant does not in actuality make it so (just as declaring that the universe is static would not make it so).

Like any 'good' theory, marxism is useful in that it provides tools of analysis that can be used to explain (in a way that makes sense) the key aspects of capitalist societies, as well as current trends in the globalisation of capital. I realise that there are ideological reasons for 'writing it off' as a theory - but ignoring it doesn't change anything; the fact is, it DOES explain key aspects of the social world :smile:

russ_watters

Apr30-05, 09:38 AM

russ_watters, while I agree with some of the things you say, I definitely and absolutely disagree with the statement that marxism is a 'theory that failed'. What historical evidence are you thinking of to support this claim? Do you mean the 'collapse' of the Eastern bloc? Or the fact that the 'worker's revolution' has not happened? Contrary to statements made by postmodernist theorists such as Fracis Fukuyama, history has definitely not 'ended' (as the various conflicts around the world so powerfully demonstrate).

This brings up another question: I am really curious about what you mean by 'Marxism' - do you refer to it as a method of analysis, or do you equate it with 'socialism' or 'communism'? So much depends on the definitions of terms.

I suspect we may be talking about different things when we disagree on this one. I have been studying marxism, and have been using marxism as a tool of analysis for studying the social and political world, for many years now. It remains an incredibly powerful tool of analysis and I have not yet found a theory that can better explain capitalist society (having read critical theory, functionalist theory, feminist theory, etc). Declaring 'marxism' irrelevant does not in actuality make it so (just as declaring that the universe is static would not make it so).

Like any 'good' theory, marxism is useful in that it provides tools of analysis that can be used to explain (in a way that makes sense) the key aspects of capitalist societies, as well as current trends in the globalisation of capital. I realise that there are ideological reasons for 'writing it off' as a theory - but ignoring it doesn't change anything; the fact is, it DOES explain key aspects of the social world :smile: The thing with Marxism is that it has been tried dozens of times in various forms. And it only works on the extremely small scale (many church governments are forms of communism). Lenin was considered a Marxist, but he deviated considerably from Marx's vision. Why? Because Marx never developed his vision into a workable form of government. And the dozens of people to try to do that ended up as vicious, murderous dictators.

In short, the fact that there is not a single Marxist government in existence today is evidence of its failure. Yet, capitalism/democracy has resulted in virtuall all of the peace and prosperity in existence in the world today - not to mention the oldest government in the wold - the United States government.

selfAdjoint

Apr30-05, 10:43 AM

The thing with Marxism is that it has been tried dozens of times in various forms.

This is precisely what Alexandra is denying. Specifically the USSR, PRC, Cuba, Albania, etc. are/were not marxist. Lenin and Mao, and still more Castro and Hoxha opted for practical tyranny over marxist solutions. "Socialism in One Country" is not marxism! The long march and the great leap forward had nothing to do with marxism, except that they waved red flags.

loseyourname

Apr30-05, 11:51 AM

alexandra

Apr30-05, 12:31 PM

The thing with Marxism is that it has been tried dozens of times in various forms. And it only works on the extremely small scale (many church governments are forms of communism). Lenin was considered a Marxist, but he deviated considerably from Marx's vision. Why? Because Marx never developed his vision into a workable form of government. And the dozens of people to try to do that ended up as vicious, murderous dictators.

In short, the fact that there is not a single Marxist government in existence today is evidence of its failure. Yet, capitalism/democracy has resulted in virtuall all of the peace and prosperity in existence in the world today - not to mention the oldest government in the wold - the United States government.

Ok, thank you russ-watters - now I know how you define marxism, I can continue with the discussion. Please do note that I am not trying to convince anyone that I am right and they are wrong, and was not myself going to discuss marxism explicitly in this thread. However, since the issue has arisen, I would like to explore it a bit if anyone else is interesed:-)

I have formally studied political science, and the 'political science' definition of marxism is that it is a system of analysis (a theoretical perspective which gives one tools with which to analyse the socio-political-economic world) rather than a system of government. Of course, Marx's theory also incorporated a possible 'vision' for the future (what you were talking about, russ_watters), but this is not the aspect of his theory that I am referring to when I talk about marxism - I am talking about the theoretical tools.

As a system of analysis, marxism provides a number of conceptual tools one can use to analyse capitalist society. As you probably already know, two key marxist concepts are 'class' and 'historical materialism'. I believe that a marxist analysis is a very powerful theoretical tool that is still very much valid because it enables social scientists to understand capitalist societies since:

1. Classes still exist (capitalism is, by definition, a 'class' society - ie. there are different economic classes). Marxism does define 'class' in a very specific way, but that may be a bit too technical to go into at this point.

2. A properly conducted marxist analysis involves examining the historical context of whatever one is interested in investigating. Perhaps people will agree that one cannot really understand any single event taken out of context, and that one has to consider the historical evolution of events in order to understand them?

3. A marxist theoretical perspective adopts a materialist position when trying to explain events - it does not draw on reasons such as 'religious beliefs' to explain conflicts, for instance, but looks for material reasons (eg. the acquisition of territory, or of material resources). Marxist explanations can therefore be supported by the use of relevant evidence and are, in scientific terms, therefore more credible.

4. It is a dynamic perspective that uses the 'dialectical' method of analysis (from philosophy), recognising the every socio-political situation is fluid and changing, and that there are a multitude of variables interacting with one another and affecting one another in the interaction. In other words, a rigorous marxist analysis takes into account the complexity of the socio-political world, which is not something many other theoretical perspectives are capable of doing.

My main point is this: if ever there were a theoretical perspective/tool of analysis in the social sciences that was scientific, marxism is the one. That is why I could not agree that it has lost its explanatory power: it explains capitalist societies in a depth that no other theoretical perspective achieves. Of course, one first has to learn about how to work with the theory - what the conceptual tools of analysis are, and how to apply them. This takes dedicated study, as is the case with many difficult theories in the sciences as well. It is also possible to do completely crude so-called 'marxist' analyses -but such simplistic analyses cannot really be considered to be marxist.

So, that's it. It doesn't matter if people disagree with me (I expect them to), but I do think many disagreements occur because people argue 'past' each other and do not clearly state what exactly it is they are arguing for or against. Thanks for this dialogue, russ_watters; it's interesting :smile:

alexandra

Apr30-05, 12:52 PM

This is precisely what Alexandra is denying. Specifically the USSR, PRC, Cuba, Albania, etc. are/were not marxist. Lenin and Mao, and still more Castro and Hoxha opted for practical tyranny over marxist solutions. "Socialism in One Country" is not marxism! The long march and the great leap forward had nothing to do with marxism, except that they waved red flags.

Yep, selfAdjoint - I agree: none of those political systems were actually socialist or communist (not by the technical definitions of these terms). The fact that they claimed they were socialist or communist does not mean that they actually were. There has not yet been a socialist system of government in this world - never mind a communist system.

I would just like to add that I think it is confusing to use 'marxist' as a synonym for 'socialist' or 'communist' - the terms have erroneously been used interchangeably in the mass media, and that is the source of the confusion. We should separate these terms so we all know what we're talking about. Technically, there can never be any such thing as a 'marxist' political system or system of government since marxism is a theoretical or analytical perspective. Another common source of confusion is the use of the word 'Stalinism' as if it had the same meaning as 'socialism' and 'communism'; it doesn't.

alexandra

Apr30-05, 01:15 PM

How exactly are you to implement Marxism without tyranny? I would hardly think it coincidence that all leaders/nations that tried to implement Marx's vision decided to do so by tyranny. Unless you expect several million people to voluntarily give up their hard-earned private property, which seems to me a fairly unreasonable expectation.

By the way Alex, I would argue that the best theory by which you can understand capitalism is not Marxist theory, but rather capitalist theory.

:biggrin: I was hoping you'd respond, loseyourname - I wanted to compliment you on your choice of signature message; it's great! I would also like to 'borrow it' for a while (while we are having this discussion, during which I expect to have my views 'attacked' from many quarters - but I don't mind).

Ok, back on task... It is true that one cannot get beyond the capitalist system of private ownership of property by asking the rich to 'be nice' and 'share' (this is the sort of naive, utopian plan that the early French socialists had, and Marx completely dissociated himself from them as he wanted to develop a scientific theory to explain social change).

Just as the transition from feudalism to capitalism involved a political revolution (the French Revolution, which Marxists refer to as the bourgeois revolution since it transferred power from the aristocracy to the emerging capitalist or 'bourgeois' class), the transition from capitalism to another soco-political system would, realistically, involve a political revolution. It is not reasonable to expect to ask very rich people to give up what they have out of 'the kindness of their hearts'. The point is, though, that there are relatively *very few* rich people - the capitalist class (as defined by Marx: the owners of the means of production) is not only relatively small, but the gap between what they have and what the rest of the world has to share is also widening.

So, Marx predicted that when the material conditions are right (ie. when the vast bulk of humanity is so impoverished that the ordinary people have nothing to lose), people will unite and do whatever is necessary to try and secure their physical survival. It's a sort of 'survival instinct' thing: either that, or they will simply starve to death! We shall have to see how history unfolds, and it is no use arguing about it. It does not matter in the least whether you and I agree or disagree about whether or not this will happen - but it is something to consider, perhaps? An interesting thought experiment?

When you say that I should use 'capitalist theory' to understand capitalism, I don't really know which theory you are referring to. Please point me to some readings. If you are interested, I am sure you could easily locate some of Marx's work to read as well - it's a fascinating intellectual exercise, if nothing else:-)

russ_watters

Apr30-05, 05:10 PM

loseyourname's point is really all that needs to be said about the attempts at Marxism. I have only one thing comment on: My main point is this: if ever there were a theoretical perspective/tool of analysis in the social sciences that was scientific, marxism is the one. That is why I could not agree that it has lost its explanatory power: it explains capitalist societies in a depth that no other theoretical perspective achieves. I'll accept that it attempts to explain capitalist societies, but is it successful? It has predicted failure and revolution. It simply hasn't happened - in fact, the opposite has happened: capitalism is expanding, and with it, prosperity. Marxism fails on both sides of the coin: the predicted failure of capitalsim and the predicted rise of communism. It has failed as completely as any hypothesis can.

Astronuc

Apr30-05, 08:25 PM

I was just wondering whether anyone thinks that the kind of objectivity one pursues in scientific enquiry is also a worthwhile goal when trying to understand politics?Interesting question.

It would be nice if the politicians could pass laws and make decisions on an objective basis. However, that is certainly often not the case.

Also, there is the matter of discussions and deals going on 'behind closed doors'. How could one apply objectivity when so much is 'hidden'?

Comparative studies of different political and economic systems may be done objectively - one can certainly measure the inputs, outputs and some state variables. But when one tries to understand why communism failed or capitalism succeeded, one may not be able to 'look inside the black box'.

Whether or not capitalism or communism, or any other politico-economic system succeeded or failed may depend on the criterion (criteria) or definition of success or failure.

Personally, I find failure in all systems, and invariably personal corruption (which fosters institutional corruption) is the major cause.

GENIERE

Apr30-05, 08:55 PM

Astronuc

Apr30-05, 09:09 PM

It would be far better to study the reasons for the remarkable success the US has had in enriching the lives of all its citizens.All!? Not quite. I can take you to many places, in most large cities and across rural America where this is absolutely not true. Let's start in the Appalacian mountains of the Carolinas, Tennessee, Kentucky - then rural south.

The growing wealth of the US citizen
Many Americans are slowly losing ground.

Communism requires a despotic government;Not quite, although that is usually they way it has happened historically.

it cannot tolerate dissent, it cannot tolerate individualism, it can only tolerate the more equal of the equals, the ruling elite, and the worker ant toiling for the greater good. The greater good is of course the preservation of the ruling "class" and its deserved access to the better things in life.You mean the Bush Administration, right? :biggrin:

GENIERE

Apr30-05, 10:27 PM

All!] Not quite. I can take you to many places, in most large cities and across rural America where this is absolutely not true. Let's start in the Appalacian mountains of the Carolinas, Tennessee, Kentucky - then rural south. And yet none migrate to communist nations to improve their lot. Few if any migrate to the EU to improve their lot. Many poor, many wealthy migrate to the US, presumably to enjoy a lower quality of life. All!] Many Americans are slowly losing ground. While many more are gaining ground. All!] Not quite, although that is usually they way it has happened historically. There’s an exception?
All!] You mean the Bush Administration, right? :biggrin: Ho-hum, back to the typical persuasive liberal discourse.

alexandra

May1-05, 12:10 AM

I have only pity for someone who seemingly devotes his life to the study of Marxism. One may just as well use the Bible as a means to determine the Earth is 6000 years old. It is a useless waste of one's life. It would be far better to study the reasons for the remarkable success the US has had in enriching the lives of all its citizens... That obtuse concept does not warrant any discussion. ..

Tut-tut, GENIERE, do you pity me, then? The concepts I raise areobtuse , are they? I have uselessly wasted my life, have I? Well, why don't I just crawl into the little hole I belong to and be done with it? Actually, GENIERE, I was really expecting a much higher standard of discussion from the people on this forum - for some reason, I thought there were intelligent people here, people who cared about understanding the world.

So anyway, let's try to continue without getting personal. It is a discussion, not a name-calling exercise, I was after. There are plenty of forums I can go to if I want to participate in name-calling, and I sincerely hope that this one rises above that level - perhaps if we could all consciously work on keeping it civilised and impersonal.

In this post,
you provide four well written paragraphs, four well written paragraphs that say nothing.

If there is any substance provided, it lies in these fallacious statements:

"Classes still exist (capitalism is, by definition, a 'class' society - ie. there are different economic classes)."

That is not a definition of capitalism except possibly in the minds of those wishing to destroy it. Marxism requires the wealth of the nation to be controlled by the state under the guise of public ownership. That obtuse concept does not warrant any discussion. You cannot ascribe to Marxism the concept of an equal distribution of wealth; Marxism is the denial of wealth to the individual. ..

Actually, Marxism does not require "the wealth of the nation to be controlled by the state under the guise of public ownership". Marx's theory suggests that if humanity is to progress at all (and that is a big IF) then social organisation will move beyond private ownership of wealth to *true* public ownership of wealth. That is Marx's vision: true public ownership of wealth, the eradication of huge discrepancies in wealth and life chances, a truly egalitarian society in which there is no want and no poverty and in which human beings actually care about other human beings. This has not happened yet, but this does not mean it cannot or will not happen. Wow -anyone would think, the way people react in their minimal knowledge of Marx's work (and how they wilfully REFUSE to read his actual writings), that equality and an equitable distribution of wealth and life-chances were a bad thing. How is this bad? How is it wrong to want to adopt a more human approach in social organisation?

Distribution of wealth, slowly, steadily, inexorably is a natural outcome of a capitalistic economy in a free society... It is not possible to dismiss "Stalinism”, ”Maoism”, “Castroism” or the like as poorly or incorrectly implemented versions of Communism. Communism requires a despotic government; it cannot tolerate dissent, it cannot tolerate individualism, it can only tolerate the more equal of the equals, the ruling elite, and the worker ant toiling for the greater good. The greater good is of course the preservation of the ruling "class" and its deserved access to the better things in life. ..

To these statements I have only one response: read your own laws - the 'Patriot Act': http://www.epic.org/privacy/terrorism/hr3162.html

IBM has more stockholders than Marx had viable brain cells... the idiotic ranting of a failed philosopher ..

Ok, how do you expect me to respond to the above statements? Apart from the fact that you are conducting a personal attack rather than addressing the issues under discussion, it is preposterous to suggest that Marx was stupid and a 'ranting idiot'; the only way in which you can honestly think or make such a statement is if you know nothing at all about his intellectual development and his intellectual work. I know you won't do this (because people make up their minds about things without even reading original authors - for some reason they think they can judge others' work without even knowing the work involved), but I don't see how we can have an intelligent, meaningful argument unless we know what we are talking about. Here is a website that publishes only SOME of Marx's vast body of works in case you decide you really want to learn anything about this: http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/cw/index.htm . His most important work is Capital Volume 1, for those who are really interested in intelligent debate.

Marx's offering is as ludicrous as that offered by the demented author of "Mein Kampf". Each proclaimed capitalism as the reason for the evils of mankind; each attributed malevolent intent to minority groups or individuals; each was responsible for spawning despicable and despotic governments...

Well, Marx = Hitler, huh? Ok, this is pure, irredeemable slander. Again, I know that you will not do this, but here is my suggestion for anyone who wants to
be intellectually honest about this - read about Hitler's intellectual background and compare this with Marx's, and tell me how you can compare their work after that. Mein Kampf is not a research-based intellectual work, and it is Hitler's only publication. Marx's theory is developed over a number of complex works/writings that drew from respectable disciplines like English political economy (Adam Smith, David Ricardo) and German philosophy (Hegel, Feuerbach). Marx was a scholar whose work was based on extensive research and the application of his well-developed intellect (he trained as a lawyer, read in philosophy, edited a newspaper, studied political economy, etc).

It is both grossly unfair and *very misleading* to compare Marx's life's work with that of Hitler, who was a school drop-out and a general failure intellectually. Just in case anyone is curious to read more objective histories of Marx, this Wikipedia URL is a good starting point: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marx . You can also read up Hitler's biography on the Wikipedia site to check that what I say is correct, ie that he was a school drop-out and cannot be compared to the serious scholar, Marx.

I am after honest debate - let's try to be objective. Is it possible to be objective when discussing politics, I ask again? If not, then just declare that you refuse to be objective. But then I think it is important to be aware of your subjectivity, and not to fool yourself into believing that you have any interest whatsoever in truly understanding the world.

Reading the kind of dialogue that passes as arguments in some of these political discussions, where people refuse to even read the references the 'opposing side' provide and to consider the hard evidence presented, is very frustrating. It is as frustrating to a political scientist as a physical scientist would find trying to talk to someone who believes the earth is flat and help them see, through the evidence of their own eyes (if only they would look) that it is NOT flat. Oh no, no matter what evidence you present, they stick to their view... Very, very frustrating.

alexandra

May1-05, 12:13 AM

antfm

May1-05, 12:31 AM

sid_galt

May1-05, 01:04 AM

To quote Marx

From each according to his ability, to each according to his need

This is the essence of Marxism. Slavery of the able to the lazy as such a proposition can only be implemented by force. Nobody is going to give up his right to life voluntarily.

To these statements I have only one response: read your own laws - the 'Patriot Act': http://www.epic.org/privacy/terrorism/hr3162.html

You should go to North Korea then.

If you are equating the Patriot Act with dictatorships, then you really need to learn something about dictatorships

alexandra

May1-05, 01:56 AM

capitalism is expanding, and with it, prosperity.

Hello again. I am looking for evidence that prosperity is expanding. I am doing google searches right now to find credible sources of evidence for this. Just to let you know that I am not ignoring the substance of your argument - but if we are going to argue about this, I do require some facts and figures to base the discussion on. I am really, really trying to apply scientific methods to our political discussion here. If you find any information that credibly proves what you are claiming before I do, please give me the reference, russ_watters. Then we will have a starting point for our discussion.

Sorry for being annoying like this - but I presume (and have read on other boards in this forum) that you do not mind my asking for evidence? You also ask people for evidence to support their arguments regarding GR and the BB, etc - especially when they propose theories that you do not agree with. I am trying to be as intellectually rigorous as you in this very important field of study: politics.

alexandra

May1-05, 02:02 AM

To quote Marx

This is the essence of Marxism. Slavery of the able to the lazy as such a proposition can only be implemented by force. Nobody is going to give up his right to life voluntarily.

This, sid_galt, is merely your interpretation of what that means. Marx does not say that people will be lazy and live off the backs of others. Here's another interpretation for you to think about: the capitalist class is lazy and lives off the backs of the working class. It doesn't do a stitch of work in its lifetime, but it profits obscenely from using up the lives of people who earn barely subsistence wages. How many assets do the 'big capitalists' have? I will not mention individuals' names here, because this is not what our discussion is about. I see the capitalist class as a class - and as a whole, as a class, it exploits others in order to lead its obscenely decadent lifestyle.

You should go to North Korea then.

If you are equating the Patriot Act with dictatorships, then you really need to learn something about dictatorships

You are being unfair, sid_galt. When did I hold up societies like North Korea (or even the ex-USSR or any other country) as models of democracy? They were all dictatorships. When we argue, please let us be fair (or is that too much to ask for?)

alexandra

May1-05, 02:13 AM

Interesting question.

It would be nice if the politicians could pass laws and make decisions on an objective basis. However, that is certainly often not the case.

Also, there is the matter of discussions and deals going on 'behind closed doors'. How could one apply objectivity when so much is 'hidden'? .

Thank you for thinking my question worth asking, Astronuc :smile:

The 'hidden deals' of politics is a problem, I agree - but a Marxist analysis illuminates the 'what', 'why' and 'how' of these issues: the politicians are either part of the ruling class or they are the servants of the ruling class - and are very well-paid for the job. A Marxist analysis reveals this, and thus uncovers what is hidden. Politicians in capitalist systems are not neutral, despite the fact that this is how they try to present themselves - they cannot be. They have to take sides: the side of 'big business'. Only a Marxist analysis reveals this - otherwise it is hidden, and we wonder why the politicians do what they do. This is not really a mystery - they are a part of, and defenders of, a particular class' interests. Showing the deception is a crucial part of marxist analysis.

But when one tries to understand why communism failed or capitalism succeeded, one may not be able to 'look inside the black box'.

Ah, Astronuc - but has capitalism succeeded? I question that. History is still unfolding, right now. It's not as if there is no conflict anywhere. There are the obvious big conflicts in the Middle East and in the ex-USSR region - but there are also the daily, smaller-level class conflicts in every capitalist country. These don't get reported on much in the mass media. One has to go to non-mainstream media websites to find out about them. I will put up the URLs of such websites on request. Anyone who is interested, just let me know (because I don't want to be accused of forcing my views on others).

Whether or not capitalism or communism, or any other politico-economic system succeeded or failed may depend on the criterion (criteria) or definition of success or failure.

Personally, I find failure in all systems, and invariably personal corruption (which fosters institutional corruption) is the major cause.

Hmm, yes it is easy to lose hope in humanity. I am desperately trying not to :smile:

alexandra

May1-05, 02:19 AM

alexandra,
I wish I were more competent in political science. I don't even reach the level of amateur. But I'm enjoying very much your views and clear, informed exposition.
I hope you meet interesting debatants in this forum. Please don't be disappointed too soon. Hope to keep on reading. Thanks.

Thank you for your encouragement, antfm - I am feeling a little bit beleaguered at the moment :tongue2: . It does not surprise me that I am being so vehemently attacked, though (I expected it - because people have ideologies and deeply-held systems of beliefs that they often don't have the will to challenge - I know this), but I will try to keep on discussing this rationally and calmly. We'll see how my plan pans out. I think many people on these forums have rigorously-trained minds because they are used to working with scientific theories that require evidence and proof, and I am hopeful that we may be able to do this (crossed fingers).

alexandra

May1-05, 02:26 AM

Forty percent of America’s poor own homes equipped with conveniences the royal princes of the 19th century would sell their sisters to have. The growing wealth of the US citizen, the increase in his quality of life is a consequence of capitalism... ..

And I claim that GR and the BB are utter nonsense - the idiotic ravings of lunatics! Yes, this is true. It is true because I assert it to be true. I'm telling you, GENIERE, you have wasted your life on useless theories that explain nothing. Actually the universe was born of a turtle's egg.

Ok, let's get real here. Please provide me with references as evidence of what you say above.

PerennialII

May1-05, 02:39 AM

Thank you for your encouragement, antfm - I am feeling a little bit beleaguered at the moment :tongue2: . It does not surprise me that I am being so vehemently attacked, though (I expected it - because people have ideologies and deeply-held systems of beliefs that they often don't have the will to challenge - I know this), but I will try to keep on discussing this rationally and calmly. We'll see how my plan pans out. I think many people on these forums have rigorously-trained minds because they are used to working with scientific theories that require evidence and proof, and I am hopeful that we may be able to do this (crossed fingers).

Had to say that this discussion, in its own wicked sense, is a welcomed exception .... and am very happy you're pulling it through the way it is supposed to. It seems that many topics under political are un-discussionable due to the associated complete loss of objectivity - a most prudent question which started this marvellous thread - and as such don't rise to the level exercised in other parts of PF (could it be that scientifically informed people are too "stuck with their numbers" and "short-term" logic in order to converse less quantified issues building up their looks in life...). Great to witness in-depth and (for some parts) well informed political discussion.

Pengwuino

May1-05, 03:25 AM

I have a question: I was just wondering whether anyone thinks that the kind of objectivity one pursues in scientific enquiry is also a worthwhile goal when trying to understand politics?

I mean, I have read various discussions in which people have said that scientific 'truths' and 'facts' are always provisional, and that 'facts' sometimes change in the light of new knowledge. I have read that scientific theories supported by individuals on this forum are re-evaluated in the light of new information. This is, in my view, as things should be.

But I have observed that this rule does not seem to be applied at all when the discussion is social or political. In social or political discussions, many of those people who claim to always be open to re-evaluating their scientific theories and beliefs in the light of new knowledge seem to actively resist re-evaluating their political and social views at all. They seem to refuse to consider any information that is presented to them that may contradict their views.

Itd be great but the problem with 'factual' politics is that no one likes that and politics entirely deals with the "everyone". Funny enough you can say you have taxes and then conservation of energy. Energy is always conserved because thats just how it is because nature says so. In taxes, people "say so" and the idea of low taxes nad high program funding is what hte people want yet its illogical and impossible. People want everything for nothing and theres always 2 contradicting philosophies. In nature theres 1 philosphy, the philosophy of nature. Nature dictates what works and there is no 2nd nature peopel can subscribe to. In politics of course, theres a multitude of philosophies and one is actually capable of forcing their philosophy on others whether its right or wrong. Along with that, there is no "right" or "wrong" as there is in the universe (E =mc^2 and thats it for example). Since its all about personal preference, you always have people who want one thing and people who want another thing. Since politics caters to all sides, its inveriably trying to gather up personal preferences and taking a nice half-way point in between statistical averages. In science, no, theres no 2 sides, theres no preferences, no averages, nothing but nearly definitive truth.

Actually though, there are a FEW yes and no's in social studies.but there almost useless. Pretty much everyone wants at least some funding for schools and everyone wants water. Useless of course lol.

But one thing you bring up is that "facts change". Well the problem with that is theres fact and perceived fact. Nature works in 1 way no matter what. Our set of "facts" may not mirror nature's way but we try to get as close to it as possible and attempt to refine our facts to match nature. The reason this doesnt work as we know it in society is that we just cant take into account the entire world. Science facts are independant of the environment they take place in. Social facts arent as far as the level we can understand them is concerned. We could technically determine say, the effects on 8 year olds of drinking soda but the theory would have to have provisions and expand to every single variable imaginable (form where you live to how many steps you take every day to what speed you brain works at). Every change in density of the material the kid steps on would have to be a variable in the theory and the theory would be almost infinitely long. Thats why they say social science is just "some people like this, some people dont".

But even on hte more understandable, base level that we can use, theres too many variables to make broad policy decisions and theres always someone dissatisfied.

sid_galt

May1-05, 04:42 AM

This, sid_galt, is merely your interpretation of what that means. Marx does not say that people will be lazy and live off the backs of others.

I don't see how. Can you explain

Here's another interpretation for you to think about: the capitalist class is lazy and lives off the backs of the working class. It doesn't do a stitch of work in its lifetime, but it profits obscenely from using up the lives of people who earn barely subsistence wages. How many assets do the 'big capitalists' have? I will not mention individuals' names here, because this is not what our discussion is about. I see the capitalist class as a class - and as a whole, as a class, it exploits others in order to lead its obscenely decadent lifestyle.

I challenge you to justify your statement that the capitalist class is lazy and evil. If it hadn't been for the capitalist Henry Ford, we might not have seen cheap cars and a revolution in methods of production for decades to come. If it hadn't been for an "evil" capitalist called JJ Hill, the North would have taken ages to develop. If it hadn't been for the "evil" capitalists, you wouldn't even be able to type what you are typing - there would be no computers. If it wasn't for the "evil" capitalists, 50% of the children would still be dying before the age of 10. If it hadn't been for the "evil" capitalists, most of the people in the world would still have been struggling to make their ends meet. If it hadn't been for the "lazy" capitalists, there would have been no Industrial Revolution.

And for your information, the "evil" capitalists most likely work the hardest with the possible exception of scientists and engineers.
Does a common laborer take the risks a capitalist takes? Does a common laborer work for 3 nights without stopping? Does a common laborer use his mind as much as a capitalist does?

Your notion that capitalists rely on their workers for their wealth assumes that man is only muscles with no mind - that businesses and machines, inventions and factories, only need a brawn to make and run, not brain. Your notion is false.

You are being unfair, sid_galt. When did I hold up societies like North Korea (or even the ex-USSR or any other country) as models of democracy? They were all dictatorships. When we argue, please let us be fair (or is that too much to ask for?)

I am not being unfair alexandra. GENIERE said that Communism requires a despotic government which cannot tolerate individualism. You responded by pointing to the Patriot Act. By this you are directly implying that the Patriot Act is as evil as the communist dictatorships.

Pengwuino

May1-05, 05:14 AM

The 'hidden deals' of politics is a problem, I agree - but a Marxist analysis illuminates the 'what', 'why' and 'how' of these issues: the politicians are either part of the ruling class or they are the servants of the ruling class - and are very well-paid for the job. A Marxist analysis reveals this, and thus uncovers what is hidden. Politicians in capitalist systems are not neutral, despite the fact that this is how they try to present themselves - they cannot be. They have to take sides: the side of 'big business'. Only a Marxist analysis reveals this - otherwise it is hidden, and we wonder why the politicians do what they do. This is not really a mystery - they are a part of, and defenders of, a particular class' interests. Showing the deception is a crucial part of marxist analysis.

Ah, Astronuc - but has capitalism succeeded? I question that. History is still unfolding, right now. It's not as if there is no conflict anywhere. There are the obvious big conflicts in the Middle East and in the ex-USSR region - but there are also the daily, smaller-level class conflicts in every capitalist country. These don't get reported on much in the mass media. One has to go to non-mainstream media websites to find out about them. I will put up the URLs of such websites on request. Anyone who is interested, just let me know (because I don't want to be accused of forcing my views on others).

I wont even bother going into a full scale argument on this one but lets just say this. Our tax system is a progressive system. Our tax system has capital gains taxes. No one who has ever claimed politicians are owend by "big business" has ever been able to explain those 2 concepts of our tax laws. They are in 100% direct contradiction towards your idea (I also want to know what your sources are for facts for the concept that big business owns politicians).

Secondly, capitalism has existed for hundreds of years. Most people who bring up this argument usually are unable to setup a timetable for what "success" would be (and most likely, the timetable starts ending at a theoretical failure of capitalism in their minds). And remember, those "un-published" problems occur in every nation, socialist or capitalist or communist or traditional.

Pengwuino

May1-05, 05:19 AM

@sid

Yah no one ever dares bring up the businessman who never gets to see his family or the CEO who dies at 45 of a heartattack because his work stressed him out beyond healthy limits or the homeless guy who lost his shirt because his business failed (but then again people say the homeless are the victims of rich capitalist??). Im starting a business and things are looken like for a few months, ill be worken 24-32 hours a week for 0 salary just because i need the business to HOPEFULLY take off. Maybe, at some point, after years of low or no salary and graduate school, i may get somewhere and hit that "evil lazy capitalist class that doesnt do an ounce of work" level of income.

Pengwuino

May1-05, 05:33 AM

Thank you for your encouragement, antfm - I am feeling a little bit beleaguered at the moment :tongue2: . It does not surprise me that I am being so vehemently attacked, though (I expected it - because people have ideologies and deeply-held systems of beliefs that they often don't have the will to challenge - I know this), but I will try to keep on discussing this rationally and calmly. We'll see how my plan pans out.

After reading this thread and comparing it to other capitalist vs. communist threads ive seen/participated in, i am absolutely amazed that you can call this a "vehement" attack (even though you quickly returned the 'attack' to teh same degree). This thread's savage attack towards you compared to absolutely every other debate on the topic is like.... your so called attack was comparable to a firecracker... every other thread ive ever read on the topic would be like every nuclear weapon on earth detonating at the same time. I mean you were practically being complimented compared to most of the things i see from people.

I see this tactic among many anti-capitalists though. They ALWAYS go "of course, i was attacked for my beliefs" when they do the exact same thing. It also makes me curious as to how you even allow yourself to comment on the American style of capitalism. You do not live in our country (as you implied in a post) and know nothing about our laws or system yet you present an argument and then complain when we dont agree with you and say your "vehemently attacked for my beliefs"

And please, before you act like a majority of the left-wingers of the world and make a fool of yourself, please state what exactly is wrong with our Patriot Act and be specific about it or appologize for such a reactionary statement.

alexandra

May1-05, 09:08 AM

Had to say that this discussion, in its own wicked sense, is a welcomed exception .... and am very happy you're pulling it through the way it is supposed to. It seems that many topics under political are un-discussionable due to the associated complete loss of objectivity - a most prudent question which started this marvellous thread - and as such don't rise to the level exercised in other parts of PF (could it be that scientifically informed people are too "stuck with their numbers" and "short-term" logic in order to converse less quantified issues building up their looks in life...). Great to witness in-depth and (for some parts) well informed political discussion.

Thank you, PerennialII :shy: It worries me that any topics become impossible to discuss, especially on the PF - it seems to me that it is worthwhile trying to address this issue. I will really try to keep a rational discussion going. It may take me a while to get back to people sometimes (because I do have to respond from an informed and thoughtful position that is thought-provoking), but what I intend to do is to find the actual substance of people's arguments and try to respond to these rather than to respond emotionally and allow the whole discussion to degenrate into a slanging match. As a social scientist, I believe that it is possible to achieve some level of clarity and reasoned argument in discussions.

For the record, I am also a mathematics student and have a keen interest in cosmology (this is what attracted me to PF) - but I would not dare to participate in discussions on those matters as I do not feel I have enough knowledge at this point and would have no expertise to offer. I may, however, one day have questions to ask on the relevant forums. By the way, everyone, I really, really enjoy reading your discussions there :smile:

alexandra

May1-05, 09:37 AM

Itd be great but the problem with 'factual' politics is that no one likes that and politics entirely deals with the "everyone". Funny enough you can say you have taxes and then conservation of energy. Energy is always conserved because thats just how it is because nature says so. In taxes, people "say so" and the idea of low taxes nad high program funding is what hte people want yet its illogical and impossible. People want everything for nothing and theres always 2 contradicting philosophies. In nature theres 1 philosphy, the philosophy of nature. Nature dictates what works and there is no 2nd nature peopel can subscribe to. In politics of course, theres a multitude of philosophies and one is actually capable of forcing their philosophy on others whether its right or wrong. Along with that, there is no "right" or "wrong" as there is in the universe (E =mc^2 and thats it for example). Since its all about personal preference, you always have people who want one thing and people who want another thing. Since politics caters to all sides, its inveriably trying to gather up personal preferences and taking a nice half-way point in between statistical averages. In science, no, theres no 2 sides, theres no preferences, no averages, nothing but nearly definitive truth.

I agree with much of what you say here, Pengwuino, but I draw somewhat different conclusions. When we discuss something like environmental issues, for instance, I totally agree with you that "In nature theres 1 philosphy, the philosophy of nature. Nature dictates what works and there is no 2nd nature peopel can subscribe to." This is exactly why it is important (if we are thinking of environmental issues) to properly think through the political and economic issues as well - as you say, we cannot impose our own rules on nature, but what we do in our productive activity (a social, economic and political issue) impacts on nature. Experts in groups such as the Union of Concerned Scientists ( http://www.bapd.org/gunrts-1.html ) can provide technical information and scientific evidence to back up their assessments of the situation. Current economic activity is sometimes predictably dangerous to the environment and sometimes its effects are unpredictable. Sometimes we just don't know whether human activity is causing irremediable damage to the environment, but it seems likely that we are: "In nature theres 1 philosophy..." So do we just ignore the damage because it's not happening right here, right now? Doesn't anyone on this discussion board have children? Doesn't anyone think they'll have grandchildren?

But one thing you bring up is that "facts change". Well the problem with that is theres fact and perceived fact. Nature works in 1 way no matter what. Our set of "facts" may not mirror nature's way but we try to get as close to it as possible and attempt to refine our facts to match nature. The reason this doesnt work as we know it in society is that we just cant take into account the entire world.

Hmm, it seems to me that when you are attempting to discover how nature works, there are also many variables involved. For example, I would imagine there are many more variables involved when one is trying to understand the universe itself than there are when one is trying to understand human society? Both intellectual activities (trying to understand physics/the universe and trying to understand social organisations) are complex - yet we do not balk from the task of trying to understand the origins and ultimate fate of the universe. It does not make sense to me that, given that ambition, we should give up on attempts to understand humans and their social organisations.

Science facts are independant of the environment they take place in. Social facts arent as far as the level we can understand them is concerned. We could technically determine say, the effects on 8 year olds of drinking soda but the theory would have to have provisions and expand to every single variable imaginable (form where you live to how many steps you take every day to what speed you brain works at). Every change in density of the material the kid steps on would have to be a variable in the theory and the theory would be almost infinitely long. Thats why they say social science is just "some people like this, some people dont".

But even on hte more understandable, base level that we can use, theres too many variables to make broad policy decisions and theres always someone dissatisfied.

I'm tempted to bring up the argument here that even pure science can no longer claim objectivity. I have read several 'popular science' cosmology books that say that even in the physical sciences, the very act of observation changes the results of the experiment. I do not, however, have any real or deep knowledge about this so I would call on experts who know science to contribute (I simply don't have time to do the deep amount of study it would take - though I intend to study these things over the next few years). So, can anyone help me out with this one? Is science completely objective, or is it also the case that the observer is a part of the observation and influences it? If the latter is the case, perhaps we should stop 'doing science'?

alexandra

May1-05, 10:39 AM

I don't see how. Can you explain .

Ok, this is why I say that when Marx wrote "From each according to his ability, to each according to his need" he did not mean what you interpret it to mean, ie. that "Slavery of the able to the lazy as such a proposition can only be implemented by force. Nobody is going to give up his right to life voluntarily."

What Marx meant was that people are good at (and are interested in) different things, so they should work at the things that they are good at and interested in ("From each according to his ability..."), and that all people living in a society should make a useful contribution to their society. For example, in every social organisation we will need both doctors and garbage collectors; both are necessary since without the latter (garbage collectors) we'd need a heck of a lot more doctors to cope with the results. Now, some people have the intellectual skills to study medicine, and also have the desire and the required self-discipline for such study, so that is what they should do and then their contribution to society will be as doctors. Some people just aren't cut out for that sort of study, or just aren't interested, or just aren't suited to being doctors because they faint at the sight of blood (my lame attempt at a joke; sorry!). So they should contribute to the social welfare of the community they live in in other ways - for example, by becoming garbage collectors. In other words, Marx meant that *everyone* has to make *some substantial* contribution to society in return for having their physical survival needs met ("...to each according to his need"). This is why I disagree with your interpretation - Marx just never said what you claim he said.

I challenge you to justify your statement that the capitalist class is lazy and evil. If it hadn't been for the capitalist Henry Ford, we might not have seen cheap cars and a revolution in methods of production for decades to come. If it hadn't been for an "evil" capitalist called JJ Hill, the North would have taken ages to develop. If it hadn't been for the "evil" capitalists, you wouldn't even be able to type what you are typing - there would be no computers. If it wasn't for the "evil" capitalists, 50% of the children would still be dying before the age of 10. If it hadn't been for the "evil" capitalists, most of the people in the world would still have been struggling to make their ends meet. If it hadn't been for the "lazy" capitalists, there would have been no Industrial Revolution..

sid_galt, I do not use emotional language such as 'evil'. It would be infantile of me to argue from such a simplistic position, and I find it insulting that you should accuse me of this. Please point out where I speak in terms of simple things like 'good' and 'evil'? I should hope that my analysis is more sophisticated than that! So, everyone reading this, please go back to what I have written and confirm that I never used such an argument. I made a real point of stating that I am talking about economic classes, and not about individuals.

My statement about the 'lazy capitalists' (words I DID use) was a counterargument to something you said. I regret it. I let my guard down, and will have to be more rigorous in future. My apologies, sid_galt, for allowing even that much emotive language creep into my response.

It is an elementary marxist understanding that capitalism furthered human social organisation. Capitalism was, as you point out, a necessary stage and, again as you say, without this stage of social development there would have been no Industrial Revolution and we would all still be peasants living as serfs in ignorance, and I would not be sitting here having this lively and invigorating discussion with you. We have no argument there; I agree with you :smile:

And for your information, the "evil" capitalists most likely work the hardest with the possible exception of scientists and engineers.

sid_galt, I am not convinced about the hard-working capitalist theory of yours. No matter how hard one works, when most people are earning barely enough to subsist on, is it fair for CEOs to earn as much as they do? After all, aren't there only 24 hours in one day? How hard can these CEOs possibly be working? Here's a WorldWatch Institute article with more information about this: http://www.worldwatch.org/features/vsow/2003/08/27/ . An extract: "In 2001, the average annual pay of U.S. CEOs topped $11 million—some 350 times as much as the U.S. factory worker, who earned on average $31,260." I don't know whether CEO earnings have risen or dropped since then, but I imagine if they did drop it would not have been by much. Actually, I've just found a more recent article at USAToday: http://www.usatoday.com/money/companies/management/2003-03-31-ceopay2_x.htm - it confirms that nothing much has changed...

Does a common laborer take the risks a capitalist takes?

According to the U.S. Department of Labor Bureau of Labor Statistics, working as a common labourer can be hazardous to your health and can result in fatalities: http://www.bls.gov/iif/oshsum.htm . There's heaps of information on this site, so please excuse me if I don't have time to summarise it.

Does a common laborer work for 3 nights without stopping? Does a common laborer use his mind as much as a capitalist does?

Hmm, ok - you tell me. Where can you give me evidence that a capitalist works for 3 nights without stopping? (I presume you mean straight through three days and nights?). I'm not sure that this is a major issue in the argument, but it is interesting. And regarding whether or not a common labourer uses his mind as much as a capitalist does... well, I would argue that all work involves problem-solving of some sort, and awareness. I doubt that we can measure who uses his mind more. But my question is, why is this relevant to our discussion? Is using one's mind a lot more valuable than using up one's body?

Your notion that capitalists rely on their workers for their wealth assumes that man is only muscles with no mind - that businesses and machines, inventions and factories, only need a brawn to make and run, not brain. Your notion is false.

Oh no, sid_galt, I certainly do not assume that 'man is only muscles with no mind'. After all, I consider myself to be an intellectual worker too, and am pretty hopeless at anything practical or involving manual work. I believe that all people use their brain in all jobs - no job is purely manual. Surely one has to be thinking about what one is doing all the time, even if the job is only digging up dirt? I certainly believe in the importance of intellectual labour - I guess I just don't believe that the *really* rich have to do this themselves: they pay to employ other people's brains - managers, scientists, engineers, etc.

I am not being unfair alexandra. GENIERE said that Communism requires a despotic government which cannot tolerate individualism. You responded by pointing to the Patriot Act. By this you are directly implying that the Patriot Act is as evil as the communist dictatorships.

Yes, I do need to clarify this. The Patriot Act can be used in a way that erodes the rights of US citizens and the rights of other people who are not US citizens. It gives the government the power to infringe on the privacy of individuals, whether or not they are a 'threat'. That is what I meant. I meant that this Act can be badly misused. No doubt I will have to expand on this explanation at some stage, but it is getting late now and I am tiring... soon I will say something silly that will come back to haunt me if I don't stop now :wink:

russ_watters

May1-05, 10:55 AM

Marx could do maths too! An 'idiot', huh? Here's the link: http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1881/mathematical-manuscripts/index.htm

For some reason, I thought this may help you see that he has intellectual credibility. After all, I presume everyone on this forum respects maths and a mind that can understand it? alexandra, this isn't about credibility. Marx was a genius and a visionary. But that doesn't automatically make his theory right. Even Einstein made mistakes.

alexandra

May1-05, 11:29 AM

I wont even bother going into a full scale argument on this one but lets just say this. Our tax system is a progressive system. Our tax system has capital gains taxes. .

Let's look at the taxation issue, Pengwuino. I did a google search and found this link: http://www.dkosopedia.com/index.php/Taxes#New_Tax_Legislation . On this website, I found a brief article about pending tax reform legislation: http://www.dkosopedia.com/index.php/Pending_Tax_Reform_Legislation . A brief extract:

"As of November 19, 2004, the bare outlines of the plan were as follows:

A reform of the existing income tax, not a national sales tax.
Retain mortgage interest and charitable deductions.
Retain at least somewhat progressive tax rates.
Revenue neutral.
Likely to eliminate the state and local tax deduction.
Likely to scrap the employer deduction for health insurance for employees.
Likely to favor income from interest, dividends and capitals gains, and to expand tax breaks for business investment.
Likely to eliminate the alternate minimum tax.
Supposed to be simpler.

The gist of the progressive criticism of proposed tax reform is that it is not appropriate to favor income from property over income from work, that such a regime favors the rich over the poor, that the state and local tax deduction is a principal enshrined in the Declaration of Independence and unduly penalizes those in blue states with higher income taxes, and that we don't need to reduce the incentive to provide health insurance in the midst of a health insurance crisis.

Progressives don't necessarily disagree that the tax system is too complex, but believe that most of the complexities arises out of undeserved tax breaks for monied interests. Progressives also disagree that the current level of tax revenue is appropriate. Unwise Republican tax cuts have led directly to a large budget deficit which amounts to a "birth tax" because it will be paid for by future generations, even though the benefits have gone to the current generation. This revenue shortfall, in the eyes of progressives, should be made up for by those whose tax cuts have created it, corporations and wealthy individuals."

It seems the pending 'reforms' favour the rich and disadvantage the poor? I again have to suggest that you do further reading on this - I don't think I should be copying entire articles onto this website.

No one who has ever claimed politicians are owend by "big business" has ever been able to explain those 2 concepts of our tax laws. They are in 100% direct contradiction towards your idea (I also want to know what your sources are for facts for the concept that big business owns politicians).

Here is a BBC article about big business and politicians: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/2117719.stm . If you are really interested in seeing how I can make this link, you could read it. It gives examples of these links. The BBC is, I hope, an acceptable source of information? It has to verify its sources and its information before printing it; otherwise it could be sued - especially about something like this.

Secondly, capitalism has existed for hundreds of years. Most people who bring up this argument usually are unable to setup a timetable for what "success" would be (and most likely, the timetable starts ending at a theoretical failure of capitalism in their minds). And remember, those "un-published" problems occur in every nation, socialist or capitalist or communist or traditional.

I do not want to discuss any timetables for revolutionary changes - I think such a discussion would be futile at this stage, and in any case I have nothing intelligent (based on evidence) to say about this matter because it is the stuff of astrologers. I simply want to demonstrate that it is possible to have a rational, relatively unemotional (perhaps) and relatively objective (perhaps) political discussion from which people learn to look at the evidence. I am interested in whether or not scientists are capable of using their tools of analysis in wider aspects of their lives. So let's call this an experiment...

loseyourname

May1-05, 03:06 PM

I was hoping you'd respond, loseyourname - I wanted to compliment you on your choice of signature message; it's great!

Always great to find another fan of Joyce.

Ok, back on task... It is true that one cannot get beyond the capitalist system of private ownership of property by asking the rich to 'be nice' and 'share' (this is the sort of naive, utopian plan that the early French socialists had, and Marx completely dissociated himself from them as he wanted to develop a scientific theory to explain social change).

It isn't just getting rich people to give up their private property. It's getting anybody to give up their private property.

So, Marx predicted that when the material conditions are right (ie. when the vast bulk of humanity is so impoverished that the ordinary people have nothing to lose), people will unite and do whatever is necessary to try and secure their physical survival.

Yes, that would have to be the case. I would imagine that the average wealth of individuals in a given society would have to be extremely low for it to be advantageous for very many of them to give up their private property and opt for a voluntarily Marxist society (which, strictly speaking, is impossible, as there is no way that everyone will give up their private property). However, as Russ has pointed out, there are no capitalistic societies that are nearing that point. Private wealth has increased across the board; even the poorest among us are generally wealthier than the poorest among us 100 years ago.

It's been a while since I've read Marx (a good six years at least), but I'm pretty sure he thought that the revolution of the proletariat would occur fairly soon, and that living conditions and the average wealth of individuals in capitalistic societies would decrease over the coming century. None of the testable predictions he made thus far have been born out.

When you say that I should use 'capitalist theory' to understand capitalism, I don't really know which theory you are referring to. Please point me to some readings.

I'm not terribly well-read on political science, but keep in mind that capitalism is an economic theory. The theory I refer to is simply capitalism itself, as originally proposed by Adam Smith - market dynamics, productions possibility curves, the 'invisible hand,' all that good stuff. One book that I can direct you to that explains the rise of nationalism over dynasticism over the last three hundred years, and cites capitalism as one of the factors, is Imagined Communities by Benedict Anderson. It's not a book of capitalist theory, but it does show one way in which capitalism can help us to understand modern history.

Pengwuino

May1-05, 04:59 PM

@Alexandra

You seem to be desperately missing my point on nature vs social science. The "philosophy" of nature is F =ma, gravity is a function of mass (for all intensive purposes), blackbody radiation is a certain formula, a certain # of universal constants, etc. etc. Im not talking about man's effect on nature. And as far as observing something actually changing something about the experiment, thats quantum physics and is a very small theory within it which doesnt apply. When we figure formulas and put them into real world situations, we can pretty much ignore all other factors while the same is horribly untrue for social science.

As for the capitalism thing, you seem to care little about the upper classes of capitalism which really leads to your downfall. You immediately dismiss any notion that the 'upper class' has worked hard, didnt know what "9-5" meant and only knew that his job was done whenever it was done, never sacrificed, never put his physical health in danger, etc. etc. You also do not acknowledge those who have failed and are now 'in the gutter' per say.

as for the politicians, its getting annoying that you comment on another nation's government when you obviously do not understand what you are saying. I believe even during the time that article was published, many CEO's and businessmen that did business under the Clinton administration were being thrown in jail under the Bush administration. Also, that expodedia (closed link, sorry) link obviously is inaccurate. Many economists, some nobel prize nominated/winners agreed that the tax cuts pulled the US economy out of what would have been a depression thanks to the 'burst bubble' of the tech sector. The "scandal" about Bush though is also rather laughable as theres been very little evidence to indicate any wrong doings. Even the parties fighting for control of our nation gave up on that a long time ago.

And you do realize the great problem with Marx's theory is that its impossible. We thought resources were unlimitd at that time. We now realize there not. You also state everyone gets to do what they are good at or like to do yet immediately contradict yourself by saying some people will have ot be forced into doing crappy work for the same rewards as a doctor or afast food worker or a police officer. You also of course, must have someone dictating what you are going to do and what you deserve to live with whereas in a capitalist society, if you want more then hte next guy, you can work your way into that position of getting more then the next guy.

You also bring up CEO's and such getting huge sums of money (by the way, after that article you posted about teh 11 ml average, salaries did drop a very large amount). Well you dont seem to acknowledge that no factory worker ever left a trail of homeless factory workers in his rise to where he is. CEO's on the other hand do, for every 1 CEO, who knows how many people failed at the prospect of being a CEO and some lost all that they owned in the process.

also... The gist of the progressive criticism of proposed tax reform is that it is not appropriate to favor income from property over income from work, that such a regime favors the rich over the poor, that the state and local tax deduction is a principal enshrined in the Declaration of Independence and unduly penalizes those in blue states with higher income taxes, and that we don't need to reduce the incentive to provide health insurance in the midst of a health insurance crisis.

Ok after re-reading that post and coming across this, there is something SERIOUSLY wrong with this website. The term "blue state" was only recently coined and was meant to be used for a very short time and shows obvious political bias to this site. The implications are absolutely preposterous. Please find some far more credible sitse then this.

Pengwuino

May1-05, 05:26 PM

You also failed to explain the concept of capital gains; an incredibly high tax targeted directly at the "capitalist" class (your words, even though that invariably is everyone in America using its correct definition).

And do wonder why our definition of 'poverty' is actually considered middle or even upper-middle class in many socialist countries if our nation holds down the poor so much.

alexandra

May1-05, 10:14 PM

alexandra, this isn't about credibility. Marx was a genius and a visionary. But that doesn't automatically make his theory right. Even Einstein made mistakes.

:approve: Ok, thanks for this reassurance russ_watters. I just couldn't believe that anyone would compare Marx to Hitler, and this is why I was so adament that people should first investigate what sort of thinker Marx was before accepting such a comparison. I also objected to being told that I have put so much intellectual effort into studying something that is worthless, a view that anyone who has actually made a study of his work could not possibly hold.

It annoys me that people judge any intellectual's work (not only Marx's) without first having read it. I once made that mistake regarding Nietzsche, and felt totally ridiculous once I started reading it and realised that I had just taken on the 'popular' misconceptions about him without giving myself a chance to think for myself. I was so 'against' him (based on no credible evidence) that I had even refused to read any of his work! How ridiculous is that?

alexandra

May1-05, 10:27 PM

You do not live in our country (as you implied in a post) and know nothing about our laws or system yet you present an argument and then complain when we dont agree with you and say your "vehemently attacked for my beliefs".

My apologies about the 'vehement attack' thing; you're quite right, that was definitely an overstatement of the case. I think it's just that I've read some of the other thread and the way people react to what they disagree with there and I was worried the same would happen here. It hasn't so far.

But I do have two questions for you before we continue our discussion, Pengwuino, and they relate to something you have said twice now (refer to first line quoted above and to statement quoted below).

@Alexandra

...as for the politicians, its getting annoying that you comment on another nation's government when you obviously do not understand what you are saying.

My questions are:
1. Do you believe that as a non-American my view is necessarily uninformed and worthless?
2. Do you want me to stop participating in this discussion?

I will desist until you have responded either way. If you want me to just stop, say so and I will. If you don't respond, I will assume you want me to desist.

GENIERE

May1-05, 11:10 PM

Although not solicited -

yes
yes
yes

Pengwuino

May1-05, 11:22 PM

Geniere, there were only 2 questions you intellectually deprived american :D lol

@ alexandra

1. Of course not but you have so far brought about outside opinions about my country using incorrect data and said that people, such as me and others, are too...i forget what word you use, but we're too "stuck" on our ideology to ever think against it? I dunno what term you used, but you say we are stuck on our ideology and wont listen to you. Well we dont listen to you not because we love our ideology or something, we arent listening because you have presented incorrect data on our country in an argument against our country. It seems only fair to present data if its correct and as Americans, our knowledge takes precident over yours in matters where incorrect data might be used seeing as how we are the ones who live in this country and we are the ones in-tune with American politics. Wherever you live, you are far more in-tuned to whichever country it is's politics then we are. Hopefully, we would never attempt to argue against your country using data from a New York or Washington newspaper or American website that you know, as a resident of your country, is incorrect.

2. No but please bring up some facts based on what we have requested. I personally ahve requested actual cited cases inside the Patriot Act where US citizens rights are somehow utterly destroyed as most people seem to say they are and you have not done so. Someone also asked as to what your evidence is for the "capitalist" class being lazy was.

So, in conclusion, we would love for you to stay as long as some real arguments are being presented and not here-say and "rhetoric".

russ_watters

May1-05, 11:24 PM

It annoys me that people judge any intellectual's work (not only Marx's) without first having read it. That's a big assumption that you're making there. And not just about Marx's work itself - but about the history of communism and capitalism that followed it. I just couldn't believe that anyone would compare Marx to Hitler... Well, the comparison to Hitler would be indirect, but I would directly compare Marx and Stalin. Marxism was the enabling idea that led to the deaths of tens of millions of Russians under Stalin. Stalin murdered (through starvation) most of the farmers in Russia for the purpose of collectivization. No, I'm certain Marx would not have approved of his methods, but Stalin's actions were a real effort to impliment an aspect of Marx's theory. And as I and others pointed out, Stalin's methods were the only way many such ideas of Marx could actually be implimented. That's the flaw in Marxism and its a biggie. I do not want to discuss any timetables for revolutionary changes... That is a key flaw in the Marxist ideology (the ideology of his followers). Its unscientific. A good example in science is the discovery of neutrinos (I think it was neutrinos...). Neutrinos are discovered by their interactions with other molecules - ie, an energetic collision. By making a huge tank of water and shielding it from other forms of radiation, you can detect neutrino collisions. Theory predicted the number of such collisions that should be detected - for the first few detectors, on the order of one or two a year. The point is, that if the theory had merit, neutrinos would have been detected. Probability allows for the chance that you might go more than a year without seeing one, but the longer you go without seeing one, the greater the probability that the theory is wrong. So too with Marxism. Marxism has failed to happen for so long, while the counter-theory has had unbridled/unprecidented success, that the likelyhood of Marxism proving itself viable is asymptotically approaching zero. Had a neutrino detector gone 5 years without seeing a neutrino, the theory would have been dropped - well, Marx has had 100 years of similar failure.

Also, there is one fact that people made (correct and incorrect) implications about that I need to make sure is clear: everyone benefits from capitalism in a capitalistic society. Yes, you read that right. I said everyone. And the evidence of that is direct: the income of every segment of the US society increases with time. Yes, even the bottom 20% - the poorest of the poor - are getting richer.

But what of the homeless, jobless man on the street, you say? Hasn't capitalism failed to help him? No, not even him. It is likely he, his family, his health, etc. failed him, but not capitalism. Capitalism has still helped him. How? He hasn't starved to death. If he gets hit by a car, an ambulance paid for by capitalism will come to his aid. In most other societies, if you fail completely, you often die. And sometimes, even, attempted Marxism itself kills people (see Stalin and Kim Jong Il). In the US, capitalism at the very least allows/enables everyone to live and gives them the opportunity to try again.

Regarding Bush: Even if he were wholly owned and operated by a corporation, it would not be relevant to this thread. Bush has 3 years to go and then he's not going to be President anymore. Our last President was a democrat - our next may be too. While it is true that despite his supposed political beliefs, Clinton's entanglements and corruptions regarding business were far worse than Bush's, that isn't relevant either.

A discussion of why "it" is getting worse is only relevant if "it" is getting worse, and the fact is that "it" is not getting worse, "it" is getting better.

edit: Furthermore, recent history alone cannot be used to establish trends. That applies in all fields of science. Establishing trends requires long-term data. How long term? Well, for a start, it must be long enough to account for periodic and random fluctuations. Presidential terms are such a periodic function in politics. The economic cycle (which typically goes for about 4-8 years) is one in economics. Random fluctuations include things like natural disasters.

russ_watters

May1-05, 11:49 PM

The more I read of this thread, the more incredulous I get - the OP was about applying science to politics. For the love of money ( :biggrin: ), apply some scientific reasoning to this: So, Marx predicted that when the material conditions are right (ie. when the vast bulk of humanity is so impoverished that the ordinary people have nothing to lose), people will unite and do whatever is necessary to try and secure their physical survival. That's great: its a testable hypothesis in Marxism, and one of the more fundamental ones. And its perfectly scientific and straightforward to prove with real data. Put into a more concise hypothesis form, it is:

--Capitalism causes the severe decline in wealth of everyone except for the richest few in a capitalistic society.

So you tell me: what does the data show about this prediction?

russ_watters

May1-05, 11:59 PM

I believe that a marxist analysis is a very powerful theoretical tool that is still very much valid because it enables social scientists to understand capitalist societies since:.....

My main point is this: if ever there were a theoretical perspective/tool of analysis in the social sciences that was scientific, marxism is the one. Marx's idea of applying science to politics is separate from the form of government he proposed. Essentially, its like Newton inventing calculus as a tool to help him derive the physics of gravity. But the thing that is so ironic (and mystifying) to me is that Marxists don't follow it.

I think that if Marx were alive today, if he truly accepted his own philosophy and didn't just believe in his political theory religiously, he'd call it (as Einstein once said), "...my greatest blunder...."

SOS2008

May2-05, 12:06 AM

I have only briefly reviewed posts to date, some going in different directions, so I will try to return to some of the original posts of this thread. It has been some time since I studied this topic as well, and it was not my area of specialty, so I provide a summary to comment to:

http://www.colorado.edu/English/ENGL2012Klages/marxism.html

Marxism is a set of theories, or a system of thought and analysis of: philosophy, history, and economics.

Materialist philosophy is based on empiricism, on the direct observation of measurable or observable phenomena; studying how the human mind, via the senses, perceives external reality, and particularly with the idea of how we know things "objectively," without the interference of emotions or preconceived ideas about things.

As a historian, Marx identifies five basic historical developments or changes in the mode of production: the primitive community, the slave state, the feudal state, capitalism, and socialism. He focuses on capitalism as an unequal mode of production, one that exploits workers. From these economic relations comes a crucially important concept in Marxist thought: the idea of alienation.

The economic base (the relations and forces of production) in any society generates other social formations called superstructures, and ideologies, which will articulate what, and how people can think. The ideologies present in a capitalist society will explain, justify, and support the capitalist mode of production. Again, the example of slavery in nineteenth-century US culture is useful: all of the superstructures, such as organized religion, local and national politics, and art (especially literature), worked to uphold slavery as a good economic system.

An initial concept, as put forth in this thread, is the use of Marxist theory for empiricism. However, it would seem that studying the human mind, senses, perceptions, etc. are subjective, so it would still be difficult to measure observable phenomena in relation to these things.

Of course, there is no pure form of capitalism any more than Marxism. A completely free market would be like a jungle in which the strongest predators would rise to the top and eat everyone else (Enron is an example). We must have anti-trust laws to retain competition, and regulation to maintain safety, environmental protection, etc., and must protect some aspects of our economy for national security interests. So really, it is a hybrid of capitalism and socialism. In this sense, Marx is correct.

I feel we are socialized to believe our capitalistic system is superior and just. However I feel it is more than that, which brings up the point of alienation, and for me always the question of human nature.

http://www.econlib.org/library/Enc/Marxism.html

Marx claimed we are alienated not only because many of us toil in tedious, perhaps even degrading, jobs or because by competing in the marketplace, we tend to place profitability above human need.Some people may be accepting of being a “wage slave” because they may like the security or may not know any alternative. Like gambling, people like the idea that they may make it big (become part of the 1% capitalists), even if the odds are slim. Still, I believe attitudes and behaviors evolve.

Martha Gimenez notes more recent and interesting trends in her review of Sean Sayers, Marxism and Human Nature (London: Routledge, 1998), 203pp., paperback
http://www.monthlyreview.org/1299gimen.htm

The creative use of non-work time is a modern development which, paradoxically, reflects the need to work; people whose work lives are less than satisfactory seek fulfillment during their leisure time. Another manifestation of the need to work is the extent to which people today (particularly the younger generations) are reluctant to accept meaningless work just because it is necessary for survival or because one has a duty to work. The greater the education and skills of the workforce, the more demanding they are likely to become. But one wonders how far those demands can go under the conditions imposed by world capitalism, which allows capital unprecedented freedom and mobility.We see several things. With companies no longer as loyal to labor as use to be the case in the US, people change industries an average of five times in their life. More people are trying to find ways to work for themselves (though I’m not sure if/how new bankruptcy laws may impact upon the risks people will be willing to take in the future). The average age that children leave home is now 28. Illegal immigrants are now doing the jobs that use to be filled in part by young people while acquiring education/skills. In the meantime, US companies have taken work to other countries, moving from one country to another country as the work force becomes more sophisticated and demanding. The long-term effects such trends may have on the standard of living Americans enjoy has yet to be seen.

russ_watters

May2-05, 12:24 AM

Of course, there is no pure form of capitalism any more than Marxism. A completely free market would be like a jungle in which the strongest predators would rise to the top and eat everyone else (Enron is an example). We must have anti-trust laws to retain competition, and regulation to maintain safety, environmental protection, etc., and must protect some aspects of our economy for national security interests. So really, it is a hybrid of capitalism and socialism. In this sense, Marx is correct.
I must then point out the other side of the coin (you allude to it, but I don't want others to miss it): Marxist political/economic theory, too, would never be "pure", but that can't be used as an excuse to say it has never been tried any more than it can be said that capitalism has never been tried. It has been tried in many forms in many places, and has failed catastrophically in virtually every application. We see several things. With companies no longer as loyal to labor as use to be the case in the US, people change industries an average of five times in their life. More people are trying to find ways to work for themselves (though I’m not sure if/how new bankruptcy laws may impact upon the risks people will be willing to take in the future). The average age that children leave home is now 28. Illegal immigrants are now doing the jobs that use to be filled in part by young people while acquiring education/skills. In the meantime, US companies have taken work to other countries, moving from one country to another country as the work force becomes more sophisticated and demanding. The long-term effects such trends may have on the standard of living Americans enjoy has yet to be seen. After what I just said about long-term trends, all I can say about that is this: long-term trends do not appear to indicate a detriment to the standard of living is occurring. Many of the individual issues you describe would have manifested themselves by now if they were problems. Overseas outsourcing, for example, has been going on for decades, though arguably it is speeding up. The loss of millions of jobs to outsourcing (some even go as short term as 2001 - 2.7 million jobs). Such numbers should manifest themselves even in the short term. So have they? There is a reason Democrats didn't bring up unemployment in the last election....

SOS2008

May2-05, 01:15 AM

I must then point out the other side of the coin (you allude to it, but I don't want others to miss it): Marxist political/economic theory, too, would never be "pure", but that can't be used as an excuse to say it has never been tried any more than it can be said that capitalism has never been tried. It has been tried in many forms in many places, and has failed catastrophically in virtually every application.....Agreed that Marxism has not been practised in the pure sense, and the forms that have been tried I feel have not been successful because human nature is difficult to predict with scientific methods, and IMO this is where the theory miscalculates.
After what I just said about long-term trends, all I can say about that is this: long-term trends do not appear to indicate a detriment to the standard of living is occurring. Many of the individual issues you describe would have manifested themselves by now if they were problems. Overseas outsourcing, for example, has been going on for decades, though arguably it is speeding up. The loss of millions of jobs to outsourcing (some even go as short term as 2001 - 2.7 million jobs). Such numbers should manifest themselves even in the short term. So have they? There is a reason Democrats didn't bring up unemployment in the last election....The original outsourcing of US jobs was manufacturing in nature. Our economy changed to a service industry in part due to this fact, and cheap imports in general. Now the jobs that are outsourced are largely technical, and the effect of this has been manifested in the technical sector with loss of jobs (beginning with the recession just prior to 9-11). These are higher-paying jobs than the old "sweat shop" jobs that were outsourced before, and as you mention, the practice is on a larger scale now.

GENIERE

May2-05, 02:19 AM

Geniere, there were only 2 questions you stupid american :D lol…

Please edit your post. Replace stupid with “intellectually deprived”.

...

Pengwuino

May2-05, 02:44 AM

Please edit your post. Replace stupid with “intellectually deprived”.

How dare you censor me! See! Your so brainwashed by your anti-stupid propoganda that you... uhm... do .. whatever..... george w bush = hitler!!! *runs off naked* :cry:

Wait a second, penguins dont have clothes!!!

GENIERE

May2-05, 02:47 PM

Wait a second, penguins dont have clothes!!!

Neither do Marxists, just olive grey uniforms. A display of color would distinguish the individual. That is not permitted. I suggest you dye your feathers red, white, and blue.

...

Pengwuino

May2-05, 05:21 PM

No way, my furw ould sell for a pretty capitalist penny

alexandra

May4-05, 10:23 AM

Always great to find another fan of Joyce.
Ah, yes, Joyce - I'd forgotten that's where it came from:-)

Private wealth has increased across the board; even the poorest among us are generally wealthier than the poorest among us 100 years ago.
I was wondering whether or not anyone has any evidence to back up this statement? This claim has been made in a few posts in this thread. I found a US source of information on this question at http://www.economist.com/agenda/displayStory.cfm?story_id=3146724 . This article claims that poverty is actually increasing :confused:

It's been a while since I've read Marx (a good six years at least), but I'm pretty sure he thought that the revolution of the proletariat would occur fairly soon, and that living conditions and the average wealth of individuals in capitalistic societies would decrease over the coming century. None of the testable predictions he made thus far have been born out.

I can't remember reading anywhere in Marx's work a definite prediction regarding the timing of the collapse of capitalist societies. If anyone else has a reference of where he made such a prediction, please let me know.

The theory I refer to is simply capitalism itself, as originally proposed by Adam Smith - market dynamics, productions possibility curves, the 'invisible hand,' all that good stuff. One book that I can direct you to that explains the rise of nationalism over dynasticism over the last three hundred years, and cites capitalism as one of the factors, is Imagined Communities by Benedict Anderson. It's not a book of capitalist theory, but it does show one way in which capitalism can help us to understand modern history.

I have read work on the 'invisible hand' of the market and the 'trickle down' economic theories; I just did not find them convincing:-) I will locate the text you suggest by Anderson (I recall reading an extract from it a while ago) and read it when I get a chance (but this won't be for a while as things are pretty busy at work at the moment).

russ_watters

May4-05, 11:21 AM

I was wondering whether or not anyone has any evidence to back up this statement? This claim has been made in a few posts in this thread. I found a US source of information on this question at http://www.economist.com/agenda/displayStory.cfm?story_id=3146724 . This article claims that poverty is actually increasing :confused: Only over the last 4 years - read what I said about long term and short term trends. Over the long term, poverty has decreased radically in the US and around the world due to capitalism. Even if you think its starting to change, poverty needs to double in the world and in the United States just to get back where it was in 1950 (30% in the US).

And with unemployment finally down, poverty levels will follow.

Something else important to note: the definition of "poverty" has changed with time (moreso in the US than for the world) to make it stricter. What we consider "poverty" in the US would not qualify as poverty in communist countries. In the US, poverty means having to choose between eating out and cable tv. In communist countries, it means choosing which person in your family gets to eat that day.
I can't remember reading anywhere in Marx's work a definite prediction regarding the timing of the collapse of capitalist societies. Regardless, we're 100 years into his prediction and we're further away from it happening than we were then. Sooner or later, you need to choose between the continuing unbridled success of capitalism and the Communist Revolution that gets further away with every passing year (and that's only if you choose not to look at communism's multiple, spectacular failures). I have read work on the 'invisible hand' of the market and the 'trickle down' economic theories; I just did not find them convincing:-) You don't need to worry about whether the argument is convincing, just look at the data. However it is happening, capitalism is working.

alexandra

May4-05, 11:42 AM

That's a big assumption that you're making there. And not just about Marx's work itself - but about the history of communism and capitalism that followed it.
My assumption was based on the comparison of Marx to Hitler; anyone who has read Marx's theory would know that his writings were serious works while Hitler's 'Mein Kampf' was anything but.

And as I and others pointed out, Stalin's methods were the only way many such ideas of Marx could actually be implimented. That's the flaw in Marxism and its a biggie. That is a key flaw in the Marxist ideology (the ideology of his followers). Its unscientific. .
As SOS2008 points out, Marx’s theory involved historical changes in modes of production from ‘lower’ to ‘higher’ levels; quoting SOS2008:

“As a historian, Marx identifies five basic historical developments or changes in the mode of production: the primitive community, the slave state, the feudal state, capitalism, and socialism. He focuses on capitalism as an unequal mode of production, one that exploits workers.”

In 1917 Russia was still largely a feudal society; it had not yet achieved capitalism; whether or not Marx’s theory of the historical evolution of societies is correct has therefore not yet been tested. Going strictly according to Marx’s theory, one cannot ‘skip’ the vital stage of capitalist development. It can be argued that Stalinism (which was neither Marxism nor ‘socialism’ or ‘communism’) occurred not because of any flaws in Marx’s theory but because of Russia’s stage of economic development at the time (although there were a number of other significant reasons for the failure of the revolution in Russia, including the drain on Russia’s resources as a result of the world wars and the hostility of the major capitalist countries – Leon Trotsky’s “The History of the Russian Revolution” provides good background information about the prevailing conditions).

Marxism has failed to happen for so long, while the counter-theory has had unbridled/unprecidented success, that the likelyhood of Marxism proving itself viable is asymptotically approaching zero. Had a neutrino detector gone 5 years without seeing a neutrino, the theory would have been dropped - well, Marx has had 100 years of similar failure.

Well, you just never know… as everyone keeps saying, there is no predictability in social affairs. If you want to argue this, then it would only be fair to concede that it is impossible to predict the eternal dominance of the present (capitalist) mode and relations of production. It is also worth noting that the transformation from feudalism to capitalism happened over a much longer timespan than just 100 years. According to Wikipedia, feudalism’s decline commenced in the 13th century
( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Feudalism#Decline_of_feudalism ), while capitalism started becoming the dominant mode of production with the Industrial Revolution in the 18th century.

Also, there is one fact that people made (correct and incorrect) implications about that I need to make sure is clear: everyone benefits from capitalism in a capitalistic society. Yes, you read that right. I said everyone. And the evidence of that is direct: the income of every segment of the US society increases with time. Yes, even the bottom 20% - the poorest of the poor - are getting richer.
I have provided a link regarding this in my previous post to loseyourname; I think you may consider The Economist a reputable source of information?

Pengwuino

May4-05, 11:45 AM

alexandra

May4-05, 11:53 AM

Only over the last 4 years - read what I said about long term and short term trends. Over the long term, poverty has decreased radically in the US and around the world due to capitalism. Even if you think its starting to change, poverty needs to double in the world and in the United States just to get back where it was in 1950 (30% in the US).

And with unemployment finally down, poverty levels will follow.

Something else important to note: the definition of "poverty" has changed with time (moreso in the US than for the world) to make it stricter. What we consider "poverty" in the US would not qualify as poverty in communist countries. In the US, poverty means having to choose between eating out and cable tv. In communist countries, it means choosing which person in your family gets to eat that day. Regardless, we're 100 years into his prediction and we're further away from it happening than we were then. Sooner or later, you need to choose between the continuing unbridled success of capitalism and the Communist Revolution that gets further away with every passing year (and that's only if you choose not to look at communism's multiple, spectacular failures). You don't need to worry about whether the argument is convincing, just look at the data. However it is happening, capitalism is working.

Oops - you're too quick in your responses! I was busy getting together the arguments for my last response while you posted this. russ_watters, perhaps we do have to agree to disagree on this one. I am happy with the way we aren't 'shouting' at each other and being juvenile about it, though. Given our ideological differences, I think we're managing nevertheless to have a rational conversation about this (so I think my experiment is meeting with at least some success). Are you interested in continuing the discussion (given that it seems very unlikely either of us will convince the other)? On my part, I am enjoying the discussion, and it is forcing me to think more deeply about my own views and how to back up my arguments (so I'm learning from it, which is always a plus).

alexandra

May4-05, 11:58 AM

@Alexandra

Our poverty rate has been increased a lot in the past few decades. We believe in a far higher standard of living then say, many European nations. Also, it doesnt mater if you are convinced by a theory or not. It only matters what theory works and what theory doesnt. Im not too keen on this Uncertainty Principle but eh, what can ya say.

After glancing at that economist link, im starting to wonder about that companys credibility as there was very recently like a $1000 jump in the poverty level (03'?).

Hi Pengwuino

I'm glad you're still talking to me - I thought I'd gotten you so annoyed ( :mad: ) you wouldn't want to read any more of my posts. I've spent an hour or so responding to some of loseyourname's and russ_water's points tonight, so I won't be able to respond properly to yours - but I did want to say I'm glad we're still 'talking' :smile: I'll see if I can come up with something annoying tomorrow, though o:)

russ_watters

May4-05, 12:16 PM

Oops - you're too quick in your responses! I was busy getting together the arguments for my last response while you posted this. russ_watters, perhaps we do have to agree to disagree on this one. Um, well - you don't have a response? The article you posted clearly shows only a very short term increase in poverty level and a drastic, long term decline. Again, hard data directly contradicts the predictions of Marx.

Pengwuino

May4-05, 12:26 PM

@Alexandra

Hey, a capitalist debate taht doesnt degenerate into a flame-war after 2 pages, how can i leave?

2CentsWorth

May5-05, 01:47 AM

So what if capitalism was practised in the true sense--a true dog-eat-dog free market? What do you think would happen? Why do people advocate fair trade over free trade? The up-and-comer is China right now. If the wealth is more dispersed, will it be at the expense of the American standard of living?

Pengwuino

May5-05, 04:15 AM

If you could somehow keep the government out of it and the old corporate tricks that arent really existant in capitalism theory also dont happen, you'd probably get the lowest costs to consumers and high standards of living and all that good stuff until your efficieny reaches an almost perfect state of affairs (executives making practically making the average salary for all of the countrys people and costs unable to go any lower). China's emergence as a global leader would probably leave Europe in the dust more then the US. The US would see China as an economic threat and would attempt to 'fight back' and our economy would grow and then theirs owuld grow and it would go back and forth striving to beat the other. Europe wouldn't really have a huge stake in it and would be left behind .

alexandra

May5-05, 12:15 PM

Marx's idea of applying science to politics is separate from the form of government he proposed. Essentially, its like Newton inventing calculus as a tool to help him derive the physics of gravity. But the thing that is so ironic (and mystifying) to me is that Marxists don't follow it.
I share your frustration about this: some <i>self-proclaimed</i> 'marxists' resort to throwing about slogans and arguing their positions without having properly studied the theory and without doing their research - but not all marxists are guilty of this (note, the second 'marxists' was not enclosed in inverted commas).

I think that if Marx were alive today, if he truly accepted his own philosophy and didn't just believe in his political theory religiously, he'd call it (as Einstein once said), "...my greatest blunder...."
I disagree that Marx would call his theory (I assume you meant the entire theory?) a great blunder, but I agree that he would get back to work and re-examine aspects of it and refine it to account for historical developments. There are (genuine) marxist analysts who are doing this work right now.

One thing has become clear since Marx developed his theory - as someone posted already in this thread, the notion of 'socialism in one country' (the interpretation adopted by Stalin and all the formal 'communist parties') has proved to be totally unfeasible - as socialist internationalists said from the very beginning. That is certainly something that history seems to have demonstrated quite forcefully. The globalisation of capitalism means that all social relations occur on a global level now, and the working class (as well as the capitalist class) can no longer be defined along nationalistic lines.

alexandra

May5-05, 12:20 PM

@Alexandra

Hey, a capitalist debate taht doesnt degenerate into a flame-war after 2 pages, how can i leave?

:wink: Way to go, Pengwuino. Flame wars can be fun, but it depends what one is after. I read some of the sample flame war thread on the PF Lounge General Discussion forum, and a number of real flame war threads on other forums. They're funny to read, but they don't achieve much. I meant this one as a serious thread, so I've tried (not always successfully, I admit) to not provoke or 'do' any flaming.

alexandra

May5-05, 01:22 PM

Um, well - you don't have a response? The article you posted clearly shows only a very short term increase in poverty level and a drastic, long term decline. Again, hard data directly contradicts the predictions of Marx.

I could ask you for the actual hard data - but the thing is, while Marxism provides excellent tools for analysing capitalism, as SOS2008 pointed out in a previous thread, central to the marxist theory (and something I am keenly aware of) is the notion of ideology. Again, quoting SOS2008's quote:

"The economic base (the relations and forces of production) in any society generates other social formations called superstructures, and ideologies, which will articulate what, and how people can think. The ideologies present in a capitalist society will explain, justify, and support the capitalist mode of production. Again, the example of slavery in nineteenth-century US culture is useful: all of the superstructures, such as organized religion, local and national politics, and art (especially literature), worked to uphold slavery as a good economic system."

So here's my assessment of what happens when people discuss politics: there is no such thing as starting off from an objective position, one already starts with a firmly-held belief system (or ideology, to use the term loosely). Then what happens is, even if opponents in an argument present evidence (in the form of statistics, for example), either the interpretation/validity of the evidence, or the credibility of the source of the evidence is denied. Here, I'll demonstrate with an example. Say to support my argument I quote:

“Income inequality for families, measured by the Gini coefficient,
increased between 1968 and 1998 (see Figure 1). The net effect over the entire 1947-1998 period is an increase in family income inequality./3/”

This is a very brief extract from a US government website (I have been criticised by someone before for using a source of information that is not American, so this time I ensure that my information is acceptable on that score). So the extract is from a U.S. Census Bureau report entitled ‘Income Inequality (1947-1998)’, and is available online at http://www.census.gov/hhes/income/incineq/p60204/p60204txt.html . The report is obviously supported by statistical information involving an analysis of Gini Coefficients, etc – but the authenticity and details of the report can easily be checked by following the link.

In any case, here is my guess regarding possible responses to what I believe to be evidence of a growing gap between the ‘haves’ and the ‘have-nots’ (which I believe to be a sign that capitalism does not give us the best of all possible worlds) – people who disagree with my view about capitalism will argue that
1. the growing income gap is irrelevant, and will state that in absolute terms everyone is better off than they were before (so capitalism is good for everyone), and/or
2. the report’s findings are irrelevant because the Gini Coefficient is irrelevant, and/or
3. ?? fill in your own answer :bugeye: ('smiley' is meant to be a nervous grin, but I can't find one!)

So why did I ask the question about objectivity in the first place? Well, it is really frustrating to see people ignoring each other’s evidence as has been happening in some of the discussions, and I was hoping to draw people’s attention to their subjectivity so that they think about it and (hopefully) work on giving opposing arguments a fairer hearing… I admit that this is very difficult to do, but I think it is important to try. There is a lot at stake (eg. people’s lives) when considering some political issues. I’m not saying that this particular discussion is that important – it’s been largely about theoretical issues. But other discussions (eg. about the environment and specific conflicts) are very important.

2CentsWorth

May5-05, 04:03 PM

In any case, here is my guess regarding possible responses to what I believe to be evidence of a growing gap between the ‘haves’ and the ‘have-nots’ (which I believe to be a sign that capitalism does not give us the best of all possible worlds) – people who disagree with my view about capitalism will argue that
1. the growing income gap is irrelevant, and will state that in absolute terms everyone is better off than they were before (so capitalism is good for everyone), and/or
2. the report’s findings are irrelevant because the Gini Coefficient is irrelevant, and/or
3. ?? fill in your own answer :bugeye: ('smiley' is meant to be a nervous grin, but I can't find one!)

So why did I ask the question about objectivity in the first place? Well, it is really frustrating to see people ignoring each other’s evidence as has been happening in some of the discussions, and I was hoping to draw people’s attention to their subjectivity so that they think about it and (hopefully) work on giving opposing arguments a fairer hearing… I admit that this is very difficult to do, but I think it is important to try. There is a lot at stake (eg. people’s lives) when considering some political issues. I’m not saying that this particular discussion is that important – it’s been largely about theoretical issues. But other discussions (eg. about the environment and specific conflicts) are very important.I asked what people think would happen if capitalism were practiced in the true dog-eat-dog sense. I feel it would be a survival of the fittest scenario, which would be great for those at the top (capitalists), but terrible for everyone else (proletariat). We really aren't that far away from this in that the majority of wealth is held by only 1% of the population. IMO, if it weren't for the traditional professions (doctor, lawyer, banker) and merchants, or the third class--the middle class, called the bourgeoisie, the growing gap between rich and poor would be more noticeable.

Aside from the preconceptions people have due to socialization, focus always seems to be on economics when discussing capitalism versus socialism. People must decide what kind of world they want to live in. We have social programs because we don’t want to see poor people, old people, etc. dying in the streets, for example. We can be compassionate but still enjoy a high standard of living. I don’t think either model is desirable, and would prefer a balance between the two.

alexandra

May5-05, 09:08 PM

I asked what people think would happen if capitalism were practiced in the true dog-eat-dog sense. I feel it would be a survival of the fittest scenario, which would be great for those at the top (capitalists), but terrible for everyone else (proletariat). We really aren't that far away from this in that the majority of wealth is held by only 1% of the population. IMO, if it weren't for the traditional professions (doctor, lawyer, banker) and merchants, or the third class--the middle class, called the bourgeoisie, the growing gap between rich and poor would be more noticeable.

Well put! This is my assessment as well - we seem to be at the dog-eat-dog stage of capitalist development now, where competition between corporations and the falling rate of profit (discussed by Marx) is such that all previous concessions to the working class (welfare and health systems, public education, public ownership of essential utilities like electricity and water) must be put into the hands of capital so that the members of the capitalist class can secure their share of the profit. When this happens, not only does the cost of living (basic necessities) go up (instead of down, as it is claimed privatisation will result in), but the supply of essentials like energy is destabilised (as happened, for example, in California a year or so ago?).

Aside from the preconceptions people have due to socialization, focus always seems to be on economics when discussing capitalism versus socialism. People must decide what kind of world they want to live in. We have social programs because we don’t want to see poor people, old people, etc. dying in the streets, for example. We can be compassionate but still enjoy a high standard of living.

Exactly! I can't honestly add anything to what you've said so very clearly here, 2CentsWorth - just beam my agreement :biggrin:

russ_watters

May9-05, 11:38 AM

I could ask you for the actual hard data.... I guess I should have posted it, but the thing about this particular fact is that I'm pretty sure most people are already aware of it in the general sense, if not the specific numbers. Regardless, HERE (http://www.osjspm.org/101_poverty.htm) they are. The last graph on that page shows poverty levels for different races in the US from 1959 to 2001. Also of value, is that they have times of recession highlighted. As you can see, increases in poverty correllate well with recessions (as in the current small rise). Overall, however, poverty levels in the US are about half what they were 50 years ago.

So, like I said before: that's a specific prediction made by Marx, where the actual data is going in the opposite direction from where he predicted. Marx predicted the decline and failure of capitalism: capitalism (and the world, as a result) is, in fact, flourishing.

One thing people mention a lot as a problem is the wealth gap between rich and poor. I don't see why it is a problem. In fact, the only problem I see in it is the envy that results from it. Assuming that its not just simple, base envy, my only way to explain it would be that people hold the (erroneous) belief that wealth is a zero-sum game: that in order for one person to become rich, another must become poor. But from discussions here, I know that most people are aware that that just isn't true. So, I'm left with simple envy as the only explanation. It happens with lottery winners all the time: winning the lottery rips families apart. But why? A person winning the lottery doesn't hurt the others in the family in any way, yet their greed and envy often rear their ugly head.

Frankly, its ironic - greed/envy may be what makes capitalism work, but greed/envy is also responsible for people still following communism. Yet in order for communism to work, people must be utterly free from greed/envy. Truly ironic.

alexandra

May9-05, 11:56 AM

So, like I said before: that's a specific prediction made by Marx, where the actual data is going in the opposite direction from where he predicted. Marx predicted the decline and failure of capitalism: capitalism (and the world, as a result) is, in fact, flourishing.

Russ, I just responded to a post you made in another thread in the General Discussion area. I totally understand that you have a thing about marxism and that you want to argue with anyone who supports it, but I was wondering if I could ask you a favour: I'll argue about it with you, but I think it would be best if we confined our discussion to this section of the board (ie, the politics section). I don't like having to get so serious when posting in the 'fun' area, where people are taking time out from serious issues and making jokes and stuff. How about it (do you agree to my proposed 'terrain' on which we can argue our points?). If you don't agree, I'll 'do battle' wherever you take it, though:-)

alexandra

May9-05, 12:14 PM

I guess I should have posted it, but the thing about this particular fact is that I'm pretty sure most people are already aware of it in the general sense, if not the specific numbers. Regardless, HERE (http://www.osjspm.org/101_poverty.htm) they are. The last graph on that page shows poverty levels for different races in the US from 1959 to 2001. Also of value, is that they have times of recession highlighted. As you can see, increases in poverty correllate well with recessions (as in the current small rise). Overall, however, poverty levels in the US are about half what they were 50 years ago.

So, like I said before: that's a specific prediction made by Marx, where the actual data is going in the opposite direction from where he predicted. Marx predicted the decline and failure of capitalism: capitalism (and the world, as a result) is, in fact, flourishing.

Here is how successful the most advanced capitalist society in the world (ie, the USA) is - all facts come from the website you referred me to, ie. from http://www.osjspm.org/101_poverty.htm#1 :

Q: How many people are poor in America?
A: The number of Americans living in poverty grew significantly in 2002, swelling to 34.6 million people - nearly one out of every eight people in the United States. Poverty's rise to 12.1% of the total population represented an additional 1.7 million people falling into need during the last year.

Q: How many children in the U.S. live in poverty?
A: 12.1 million children lived in poverty in 2002. The rate of poverty among children was 16.7%, significantly higher than the poverty rate for the population as a whole. Child poverty in the U.S. is much higher -- often two-to-three times higher -- than that of most other major Western industrialized countries.

Each day in America, 2,019 babies are born into poverty. This means that a child is born into poverty every 43 seconds. Almost 80 percent of poor children live in working households.

One in five children is poor during the first three years of life – the time of greatest brain development.

An American child is born without health insurance every minute – 90 percent of our nine million uninsured children live in working families.

Q: What is the official poverty level for a family of poor?
A: In 2002 the official federal poverty threshold was $18,850 for a family of four.

Q: How much income do most Americans believe it takes to provide adequately for a family of four?
A: Most Americans think that it takes about $35,000 annually to adequately house, clothe and feed a family of four.

Q: When Americans are asked how many people live in poverty in the U.S., what is the average number reflected in their responses?
A: Most Americans believe that between 1 and 5 million people live in poverty in the United States when the actual number is nearly 33 million.

Q: What percentage of America's poor are working and yet cannot earn enough to secure the basic necessities of life?
A: Nearly 40% of America's poor over the age of 16 worked either part-time or full-time in 2001, yet could not earn enough to secure even the basic necessities of life.

Three out of four children in poverty lived with a family member who worked at least part time. And one out of every three children in poverty lived with someone who worked full-time, year round.

Joel

May9-05, 12:27 PM

So why did I ask the question about objectivity in the first place? Well, it is really frustrating to see people ignoring each other’s evidence as has been happening in some of the discussions, and I was hoping to draw people’s attention to their subjectivity so that they think about it and (hopefully) work on giving opposing arguments a fairer hearing… I admit that this is very difficult to do, but I think it is important to try. There is a lot at stake (eg. people’s lives) when considering some political issues. I’m not saying that this particular discussion is that important – it’s been largely about theoretical issues. But other discussions (eg. about the environment and specific conflicts) are very important.

Let me skip the entire socialism vs. capitalism discussion and give my thoughts on the original question of objectivity and social truths in politics.

First, I think it is important to distinguish between real politics (as in, deciding who gets what, when and where) and social sciences, because of significant differences in aims and methods.
Real political issues are decided by parliaments instead of researchers precisely because social sciences can not answer those questions to everyone's satisfaction - hence they could rightly be called subjective. (This does of course not prevent one to strive for objectivity, as for example so many journalists do).
However, certain aspects of those broad issues can be approached scientifically, once some assumptions have been made. These assumptions consists partly of what I would call 'social truths' that are not under examination in the study (ie. america and england has two major political parties - something generally accepted) and partly of the approach of the study (Ie. "[obscure] social psychological components of prejudice" probably assumes that prejudice exists and that it constitutes some kind of problem). This part of the study is a subjective choice, but the rest is not. Regardless if you are using quantitative or qualitative data and regardless of what theories you use, in a good study another researches should come to similar results given a similar approach. So, if the study is not dependant on the researcher it can be called objective.
Based on the study one could then form one's subjective opinion about the broader issue and another one could claim the study is subjective because it makes subjective assumptions, but it does not make the study in itself subjective.

Finally, regarding the sensitivity needed in some political issues; I do not think academics and sensitivity goes well together, the competition is harsh and being considered a crackpot has devastating career consequences, so when one claims something in the academic world, one better be right and defend it accordingly. This is the exact opposite to how negotiations and diplomacy is performed in practice, because mutual understanding is needed to get anything done (a constraint the academic world is not bound by) and often opposite emotions must be considered. Because of that, and to be hones, because of time constrains, real political programs can not afford academic perfection. This is also why I think it is better to keep academic and diplomatic approaches separate if possible - diplomacy is the art of sensitivity, while science is quite far from it.

alexandra

May9-05, 12:27 PM

One thing people mention a lot as a problem is the wealth gap between rich and poor. I don't see why it is a problem. In fact, the only problem I see in it is the envy that results from it. Assuming that its not just simple, base envy, my only way to explain it would be that people hold the (erroneous) belief that wealth is a zero-sum game: that in order for one person to become rich, another must become poor. But from discussions here, I know that most people are aware that that just isn't true.

How does one define extremes like 'poverty' if not in relation to its opposite, 'wealth'? For some to have much, others have to have little: as you and others have pointed out in other threads, we live in a world of limited resources. Using logic, this means that there can't be infinite growth and infinite wealth for all. It IS a zero-sum game!

So, I'm left with simple envy as the only explanation. It happens with lottery winners all the time: winning the lottery rips families apart. But why? A person winning the lottery doesn't hurt the others in the family in any way, yet their greed and envy often rear their ugly head.

Frankly, its ironic - greed/envy may be what makes capitalism work, but greed/envy is also responsible for people still following communism. Yet in order for communism to work, people must be utterly free from greed/envy. Truly ironic.

Greed and envy? Well, couldn't people critical of an unfair system be motivated by a sense of justice and social conscience? To adopt a personal and individualistic level of discussion for a moment - I, personally, am neither envious of the very rich nor do I want to be in their position. I have enough money for my needs. I am concerned about these issues because I am a human being who is concerned about the way most of my fellow human beings are being forced to live substandard lives to support the most incredibly decadent lifestyles of the few. I am also concerned about capitalism's insatiable greed for profit, which drives all environmental considerations out of the window and which threatens our planet and our very existence as a species. Those are the things that drive me, not envy or greed.

And I can gaurantee that other people who criticise the profit system also do so because of concerns similar to mine rather than because they are envious and greedy and want to be rich themselves. If we were all out for ourselves and wanted only to 'look out for number one', why would we care to argue about anything? We'd be out there, making money!

alexandra

May9-05, 01:07 PM

Let me skip the entire socialism vs. capitalism discussion and give my thoughts on the original question of objectivity and social truths in politics.

First, I think it is important to distinguish between real politics (as in, deciding who gets what, when and where) and social sciences, because of significant differences in aims and methods.
Real political issues are decided by parliaments instead of researchers precisely because social sciences can not answer those questions to everyone's satisfaction - hence they could rightly be called subjective. (This does of course not prevent one to strive for objectivity, as for example so many journalists do).

I'd agree with you to some extent that the real political issues are decided by parliaments - but would add to that that real political issues are also decided by ordinary people sometimes, eg. the mass anti-Vietnam war movements in the 1960s. And it could be argued that theories developed by academics influence the development of such movements by contributing to the development of the political awareness of the people - so, if those academic theories are objective to the extent that they correctly analyse a situation and propose an appropriate solution, real political decisions can be made on the basis of information obtained objectively.

However, certain aspects of those broad issues can be approached scientifically, once some assumptions have been made. These assumptions consists partly of what I would call 'social truths' that are not under examination in the study (ie. america and england has two major political parties - something generally accepted) and partly of the approach of the study (Ie. "[obscure] social psychological components of prejudice" probably assumes that prejudice exists and that it constitutes some kind of problem). This part of the study is a subjective choice, but the rest is not. Regardless if you are using quantitative or qualitative data and regardless of what theories you use, in a good study another researches should come to similar results given a similar approach. So, if the study is not dependant on the researcher it can be called objective.
Based on the study one could then form one's subjective opinion about the broader issue and another one could claim the study is subjective because it makes subjective assumptions, but it does not make the study in itself subjective.

Agreed. As you say, different theories begin with different assumptions about what are to be considered 'social truths', but once these assumptions have been decided on and agreed, the study should be independent of the researcher if it is to be worthy of the name 'objective'.

Finally, regarding the sensitivity needed in some political issues; I do not think academics and sensitivity goes well together, the competition is harsh and being considered a crackpot has devastating career consequences, so when one claims something in the academic world, one better be right and defend it accordingly. This is the exact opposite to how negotiations and diplomacy is performed in practice, because mutual understanding is needed to get anything done (a constraint the academic world is not bound by) and often opposite emotions must be considered. Because of that, and to be hones, because of time constrains, real political programs can not afford academic perfection. This is also why I think it is better to keep academic and diplomatic approaches separate if possible - diplomacy is the art of sensitivity, while science is quite far from it.

Hmm, food for thought here - about the risky career consequences of adopting certain positions in academia. Again, I agree with what you say about this. One thing that I don't see much of in the real political world at the moment, however, is diplomacy and mutual understanding. Perhaps I could agree with another version of this statement - that real politics sometimes involves making compromises (but only if you don't have enough weapons - and the will to use them - to achieve your aims).

Joel

May9-05, 02:25 PM

I'd agree with you to some extent that the real political issues are decided by parliaments - but would add to that that real political issues are also decided by ordinary people sometimes, eg. the mass anti-Vietnam war movements in the 1960s. And it could be argued that theories developed by academics influence the development of such movements by contributing to the development of the political awareness of the people - so, if those academic theories are objective to the extent that they correctly analyse a situation and propose an appropriate solution, real political decisions can be made on the basis of information obtained objectively.

Agreed on the last part, with emphasis on the basis of - the actual descission remains subjective, ideologies and personal interests influence even the most rational descission maker. I also agree that real political descissions are made and influenced through other channels than parliamentary discission making, eg. by NGO's and the media in the public sphere. But NGO's and unaffiliated ordinary people also make subjective discission, sometimes even less supported by academic studies than parliamentary discission makers (even if I do not think it is overwhelmingly popular among politicans and statesmen to listen to the academic world either).

Agreed. As you say, different theories begin with different assumptions about what are to be considered 'social truths', but once these assumptions have been decided on and agreed, the study should be independent of the researcher if it is to be worthy of the name 'objective'.

Not much to argue then, heh? :smile: I suppose there are complications with scattered research interest and lack of successive hypothesis testing in social sciences, but I'm no researcher...

Hmm, food for thought here - about the risky career consequences of adopting certain positions in academia. Again, I agree with what you say about this. One thing that I don't see much of in the real political world at the moment, however, is diplomacy and mutual understanding. Perhaps I could agree with another version of this statement - that real politics sometimes involves making compromises (but only if you don't have enough weapons - and the will to use them - to achieve your aims).

I do not think the strict rules and competition is a bad thing most of the time - just that such an approach isn't neccesarily suitable for anyone with diplomatic ambitions, ie. to reach a consensus or compromise, as you put it. Simply put, in real politics the position is, contrary to the academic world, more important than the argument leading to it. (However, I can see it becoming an issue in local questions, where the academic circles are small, for instance here in Finland - but this is beside the point).
And yes, agreed, political resources underly all real political discissions. However, those resources are also votes received in elections, diplomatically put words or a charismatic personality. "War is the extension of diplomacy", said some smart guy who's name I've forgot, not the other way around. However, my point was really what happens once all these resources have been taken into consideration. At that point, in a democratic state, not even the strongest part can dictate the 'truth' or course of action, he is always more or less dependant on enough support from other parties, countries, people or companies to legitimate his actions, or he won't be re-elected.

alexandra

May9-05, 03:47 PM

But NGO's and unaffiliated ordinary people also make subjective discission, sometimes even less supported by academic studies than parliamentary discission makers (even if I do not think it is overwhelmingly popular among politicans and statesmen to listen to the academic world either).
Yes, true - ordinary people are particularly vulnerable to misleading information fed to them via official media channels, and academic works are less accessible (and harder work to understand) than watching TV.

Not much to argue then, heh? :smile: I suppose there are complications with scattered research interest and lack of successive hypothesis testing in social sciences, but I'm no researcher...
I think research in some of the social sciences (eg. political science) takes very different forms to research in the physical sciences - it's not always possible to use the same data collection methods or to set up controlled experiments, although the scientific research process should still be followed and involves testing how robust various theories are in explaining social reality.

And yes, agreed, political resources underly all real political discissions. However, those resources are also votes received in elections, diplomatically put words or a charismatic personality. "War is the extension of diplomacy", said some smart guy who's name I've forgot, not the other way around. However, my point was really what happens once all these resources have been taken into consideration. At that point, in a democratic state, not even the strongest part can dictate the 'truth' or course of action, he is always more or less dependant on enough support from other parties, countries, people or companies to legitimate his actions, or he won't be re-elected.
I think it was Karl von Clausewitz who said that war was a continuation of politics by other means (not sure, though). I'm not sure that political leaders in some countries are that concerned about being re-elected democratically - they seem to be able to circumvent the whole election thing so that even if they do not really win they still hold power (I am not referring to all 'democatic' countries here). There is another phenomenon as well that makes it less urgent for politicians to worry about the ramifications of their policies at election times: voter participation in some countries has been declining, eg. in the US (http://hnn.us/articles/1104.html) and in the UK (http://newswww.bbc.net.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/4206363.stm). People seem to be losing interest in participating in a system they no longer trust.

2CentsWorth

May9-05, 05:53 PM

Here is how successful the most advanced capitalist society in the world (ie, the USA) is - all facts come from the website you referred me to, ie. from http://www.osjspm.org/101_poverty.htm#1 :Perception versus reality is interesting. I saw a poll that likewise asked about class (I wish I had saved the information). Of course most Americans respond that they are middle class, even if really more wealthy or more poor (denial?). Actually, the middle class is probably shrinking, as well as more people falling below poverty levels (assuming the 'level' is established at a real level of poverty). According to Americans in the above it should be set at $35,000?

SOS2008

May10-05, 12:26 AM

I've been meaning to get back to this thread, first with regard to the global economy and free market concepts. I like a mix of news sources--mostly online such as MSNBC, BBC, etc. However, CNN Lou Dobbs has been doing a series of reports about the economy. Granted, it is a bit of a hobby horse of his, but many of his guests are prominent and topics are relevant to this thread. Here are some excerpts from a few articles:

Losing our advantage
Friday, June 18, 2004 Posted: 3:47 PM EDT (1947 GMT)

The United States trade deficit exploded to another staggering record last month of more than $48 billion.

New trade data from the Commerce Department also confirmed two alarming trends. This country has lost its edge in technology exports and is rapidly losing its edge in the services sector as well.

The trade report is especially disturbing since technology is one area that the United States has long been thought to have supremacy over other nations. Unfortunately, the data tells another story.

The United States actually ran a $3 billion deficit in April in what the government calls "advanced technology products."

According to the economic theory of competitive advantage, lower wage nations should be the ones specializing in low-tech goods while leaving the high-tech production to higher wage nations. But as American multinationals shifted operations to low wage nations, like China, they also shipped American technology, production capability and expertise abroad.

Consequently, the share of China's exports consisting of machinery, electronics and transport equipment increased from 18 percent in 1994 to 43 percent by 2003. While the U.S. balance of trade in high-tech products fell from its high of $32 billion in 1997 to a deficit of $27 billion in 2003.

Advocates of free trade at all costs have also argued that the United States does not have to be concerned about the exports of high-tech or low-tech goods, since we are transitioning into a services economy.

Revised trade data released last week, however, illustrates that our nation's surplus in services deteriorated by 21 percent between 2001 and 2003, a much larger decline than was originally estimated.For more...http://www.cnn.com/2004/US/06/17/dobbs.trade/index.html

The land of opportunity
By Lou Dobbs
Friday, September 10, 2004 Posted: 11:30 AM EDT (1530 GMT)
(CNN) -- President Bush and Sen. Kerry both campaigned in West Virginia over the long holiday weekend, taking advantage of Labor Day to talk about American workers.

The president trumpeted the nearly 1.7 million new U.S. jobs added since the end of last summer, while his opponent reminded the crowd that many of those new jobs are paying less than the ones outsourced to cheap foreign labor markets, or lost altogether.

With all the talk recently about labor from Bush and Kerry on the campaign trail, you'd think the American worker is the number one priority for each candidate. Sadly, that's not the case.

Instead of expanding our nation's manufacturing and textile base by opening new markets for products and services, all this administration and its predecessors have accomplished over the past decade is a series of outsourcing agreements. The principal beneficiaries of NAFTA and the World Trade Organization are U.S. multinationals that are exporting American jobs to cheaper labor markets overseas.For more...http://www.cnn.com/2004/US/09/09/land.opportunity/index.html

Leveling the playing field
By Lou Dobbs
Tuesday, October 5, 2004 Posted: 12:42 PM EDT (1642 GMT)
(CNN) -- We hardly need more evidence of the unparalleled political power of Corporate America. But while Congress recently approved billions more in corporate tax cuts, a new report showed that the United States' biggest and most profitable companies have been paying less in federal income taxes over the past three years despite reporting higher profits. And many of them are paying no taxes at all.

Rich corporate tax breaks and loopholes are not only making it easier for large U.S. multinationals to shelter their profits earned from operations in this country, but they're also putting pressure on smaller American companies to cut costs just to compete. And that has led to an increase in the number of jobs we've mindlessly outsourced to cheap foreign labor markets. Closing these loopholes may not be the sole solution to outsourcing, but it would serve the dual purpose of making sure all American companies compete on a truly level playing field and restraining our already unsustainable record twin deficits.

A new study conducted by Citizens for Tax Justice found that the average effective tax rate for the largest 275 American corporations dropped by a fifth over the past three years, from 21.4 percent in 2001 to 17.2 percent in 2003. The 275 companies reported pretax profits from U.S. operations of almost $1.1 trillion in that three-year period, yet they reported and paid taxes on only $557 billion. That rate is about half of the statutory 35 percent corporate tax rate that companies are obligated to pay to the government.

Some corporations are paying no federal income taxes at all, and others are actually making more money after taxes, mostly due to tax havens and additional breaks from the Bush administration in recent years. Twenty-eight of the 275 companies surveyed paid no tax at all from 2001 to 2003, despite having profits in the period of nearly $45 billion. More than 80 paid no income tax in at least one of the past three years, and last year, 46 of the 275 companies surveyed paid no federal income tax.

The report echoes recent Commerce Department data, which showed corporate tax payments fell 21 percent from 2001 to 2003. During that same period, though, the Commerce Department reported that pretax corporate profits rose 26 percent. U.S. multinationals are earning higher profits, but they're also finding more ways to protect that money from flowing back into our country.For more...http://www.cnn.com/2004/US/10/04/corporate.taxes/index.html

Free trade at all costs?
By Lou Dobbs
Friday, March 4, 2005 Posted: 11:24 AM EST (1624 GMT)

(CNN) -- The Bush administration is trying to push the Central American Free Trade Agreement through Congress quickly and quietly.

The White House, however, couldn't find the votes for this so-called free trade agreement before his re-election in the fall, and the president likely doesn't have the votes for it now. And that's a good thing for American workers.

CAFTA advocates say the agreement would open up free trade between the United States and the Dominican Republic and five countries in Central America: Costa Rica, El Salvador, Guatemala, Honduras and Nicaragua.

But this agreement represents the same free trade at all costs policy that has led to a 70 percent increase in the trade deficit since 2001. We're not signing trade agreements to open new markets for our exports. Instead we're continuing to enter into outsourcing agreements with countries that cannot possibly buy our goods.

The CAFTA trading partners are simply too poor and too small to serve as major consumer markets for anything made in America, if indeed we still are manufacturing anything in this country. But with 40 percent of workers in Central America earning less than $2 a day, CAFTA will pit the working poor of these countries against American workers, especially textile workers and small farmers. U.S. multinationals don't exactly have a great track record when it comes to keeping jobs at home in the face of cheaper labor overseas.

CAFTA may bring lower prices to consumers, but it would most likely lead to more jobs being shipped to cheap foreign labor markets. And a new poll on CAFTA shows American consumers do not want to give up their jobs for lower prices, according to the nonprofit organization Americans for Fair Trade. In fact, 74 percent of those polled said they would oppose CAFTA if it reduces consumer prices but eliminates jobs for American workers.For more...http://www.cnn.com/2005/US/03/03/cafta.push/index.html

A review of his book states: "He stresses repeatedly that those who are losing their white-collar, high-paying jobs are not getting good new jobs. Instead, while CEOs rake in ever more obscene amounts of cash and corporations get away without paying taxes and politicians of both parties smile benignly, American working men and women who once had decent livelihoods are now waiting in line for part-time jobs at Wal-Mart."

2CentsWorth

May10-05, 12:53 AM

On the topic of trends between management and labor:

http://www.fortune.com/fortune/careers/articles/0,15114,1056189,00.html?promoid=cnn

“50 and Fired”
Getting fired during your peak earning years has always been scary. You’d scramble for a few months, but you’d find something. Today it’s different. Get fired and you can scramble for years—and still find nothing. Welcome to the cold new world of the prematurely, involuntarily retired.Who knows, with all the hits the American workers have been taking, maybe labor will become alienated?

SOS2008

May10-05, 02:23 AM

Oh and here are some transcripts from a couple of CNN news broadcasts:

http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0505/06/ldt.01.html

DOBBS: Professor George Borjas is professor of economics/social policy at Harvard University. He says one solution to our illegal immigration crisis is to impose sanctions on employers who hire them. Professor Borjas joins us tonight from Boston.

DOBBS: And you are, as usual, bringing light and reason to the subject. Do you think there's any chance in the world that this government, the U.S. government, would actually sanction employers who are, after all, the ones who are incentivizing illegal aliens to cross our borders?

BORJAS: Well, the remarkable thing, Lou, actually is that it's in the law right now that people who hire illegal immigrants are in fact committing a crime and they should be penalized. The only problem is the government is not enforcing that particular law.

DOBBS: You're talking about the employers, corporations.

BORJAS: Precisely. The way to see illegal immigration really, is that it is redistributing income from workers who are losing out from the extra competition in the labor market to employers who get low-wage labor almost -- with an almost infinite supply.

DOBBS: And when you talk about redistribute income in this economy, you actually have a number as a result of your research as to what is excessive and illegal immigration is costing American workers in depressed wages. What is that number?

BORJAS: The number I have is really for all immigration, which is around $200 billion a year. Where illegal immigration is fully responsible for a quarter of that, at least. Probably about $50 billion. And there has been review of various industries, such as landscaping, and with regard to the hospitatlity industry:
Tonight, an estimated 620,000 illegal aliens are working for hotels in this country. They are among the lowest paid workers in all of our economy. And they are helping the hotel industry earn soaring profits while taxpayers pick up the bill.

The presence of illegal aliens have pushed down wages for American workers. Hotel and motel employees are among the lowest paid in the United States. Their average wage is 25 percent lower than other American workers. Illegal aliens often don't complain about working conditions or the low pay for fear of drawing attention, a benefit to the large corporate hotel chains interested in maximizing profits.For more...http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0505/04/ldt.01.html

And meat packing, as follows:
As illegal immigration has swelled, wages have fallen. In 1980, $19 an hour. By 1995, as the industry consolidated, $12. Today, $9 -- wages far below what meat packers earned even a decade ago.

A federal immigration official estimates up to 75 percent of today's meat packers are illegal.For more...
http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0505/06/ldt.01.html

But this was very interesting:

http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0505/04/ldt.01.html

DOBBS: Warren Buffett, the chairman and the CEO of Berkshire Hathaway, is among, a host of other things, the second wealthiest man in the world. He just this weekend added the world's richest man, Bill Gates, to his board at Berkshire Hathaway, the company he runs.

DOBBS: …we have a trade deficit that is now approaching six percent of our gross domestic product. Twenty-nine consecutive years of trade deficits. Is this country consigned to be a debtor nation in perpetuity? Is there some reason that we simply cannot emerge from this huge debt, and these deficits, and say we're going to have balanced trade?

WARREN BUFFETT, CHAIRMAN & CEO, BERKSHIRE HATHAWAY: The standard line is, it can't go on forever, but no one seems to give an answer of what is going to be done about it. We exported 1.1 trillion last year, and we imported over 1.7 trillion, and we are running up obligations to the rest of the world and they are buying our assets at the rate of almost $2 billion a day, and that will have consequences.

DOBBS: Are you surprised when you focus on the two deficits we just talked about, the trade deficit, and the budget deficit? The budget deficit is 3.6 percent of our GDP. The trade deficit is reaching just almost 6 percent of GDP. And the president is talking about reforming Social Security. Does that surprise you?

BUFFETT: Well, it's an interesting idea that a deficit of $100 billion a year, something, 20 years out, seems to terrify the administration. But the $400 plus billion dollars deficit currently does nothing but draw yawns. I mean the idea that this terrible specter room looms over us 20 years out which is a small fraction of the deficit we happily run now seems kind of interesting to me.

DOBBS: In point of fact, the Congressional Budget Office which is considered to be the bipartisan objective standard of such things. And its research suggests that that deficit in Social Security would be only .4 percent of our GDP over 75 years as compared to the other large deficits percentages that associated with trade in the budget deficit. Do you have -- we're talking about fixing the fixes we're in, a quick answer for Social Security?

BUFFETT: I think -- I personally would increase the taxable base above the present 90,000. I pay very little in the way of Social Security taxes because I make a lot more than 90,000. And the people in my office pay the full tax. I would -- we're already edging up the retirement age a bit. And I would means test -- I get a check for $1700 or $1900 or something every month. I'm 74. And I cash it. But I'll eat without it.

DOBBS: You will eat without it. So will literally more than a million other Americans, as well. Means testing, the idea of raising taxes, the payroll tax. In 1983, Alan Greenspan, the fed chairman, he had a very simple idea. Raise taxes, that's what you're saying here.

BUFFETT: Sure. But I wouldn't raise the 12 point and a fraction, I would raise the base. From above $90,000.

DOBBS: That's a progressive idea. In other words, the rich people would pay more?

BUFFETT: Yeah. The rich people are doing so well in this country. I mean, we never had it so good.

DOBBS: What a radical idea.

BUFFETT: It's class warfare, my class is winning, but they shouldn't be.

DOBBS: Exactly. Your class as you put it, in point of fact is winning on estate taxes, which I know you are opposed to. I don't know how your son Howard feels about that. I know you are opposed to it.

At the same week the House passed the estate tax, Congress passed the bankruptcy legislation which they had the temerity to call bankruptcy reform -- Democrats and Republicans passing this legislation. Which is onerous to the middle class. Half of the bankruptcies in this country take place, because people fall ill, serious illnesses result in bankruptcy. Nearly half of the people involved. How do you -- you have watched a lot of politics. What is going on in this country?

BUFFETT: The rich are winning. Just take the estate tax, less than 2 percent of all estates pay any tax. A couple million people die every year, 40,000 or so estates get taxed.

We raise, what, $30 billion from the estate tax. And, you know, I would like to hear the Congressman say who they are going to get the $30 billion from if they don't get it from the estate tax. It's nice to say, you know, wipe out this tax, but we're running a huge deficit, so who does the $30 billion come from?

DOBBS: And it is, it's $300 billion in lost tax revenue over the course of the next decade if the estate tax goes through.

Joel

May10-05, 03:36 AM

Yes, true - ordinary people are particularly vulnerable to misleading information fed to them via official media channels, and academic works are less accessible (and harder work to understand) than watching TV.

Yes, and finally, even academics acting outside their field of expertise may very well have no more research to support their opinions than ordinary people. (A general comment, aimed at no one).

I think research in some of the social sciences (eg. political science) takes very different forms to research in the physical sciences - it's not always possible to use the same data collection methods or to set up controlled experiments, although the scientific research process should still be followed and involves testing how robust various theories are in explaining social reality.

I also think there are significant differences in methods because of the different nature of the social and physical reality, but I also find many similarities; you can have partly controlled experiments, survey based statistics and even purely mathematical models in social sciences. What exactly the differences and similarities are is actually an interest I thought of pursuing more closely, since I've studied political sciences for two years and I am next semester about to start my engineering studies. But I think this topic could use its own thread and especially more knowledgable participants than myself.

I think it was Karl von Clausewitz who said that war was a continuation of politics by other means (not sure, though). I'm not sure that political leaders in some countries are that concerned about being re-elected democratically - they seem to be able to circumvent the whole election thing so that even if they do not really win they still hold power (I am not referring to all 'democatic' countries here). There is another phenomenon as well that makes it less urgent for politicians to worry about the ramifications of their policies at election times: voter participation in some countries has been declining, eg. in the US (http://hnn.us/articles/1104.html) and in the UK (http://newswww.bbc.net.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/4206363.stm). People seem to be losing interest in participating in a system they no longer trust.[/quote]

Yesss! That's him, Prussian general.
True, re-election isn't the only path to further power. However, they are naturally also bound by legal restrictions and other power elites (as Robert Dahl showed in his classical study of New Haven) that on their behalf prevent power accumulation to single individuals or parties. And there is a whole lot more to this discussion that goes over my head.
I am not sure that the decline in voter participation is mainly due to lack of trust - according to your BBC article that has always been an issue. I think it has more to do with voter behavior becoming less ideology driven when the election question become more varied and party position get closer to eachother, as was speculated in your other link. In addition, especially in EU countries there may be a question about descissions that affect the voter are made so far from him that he doesn't know about it and hence won't be interested. But I think at least EU discission makers are aware of this problem and try to address it by various local government projects and the upcoming constitution. How well the EU succeed will be interesting to see.

Joel

May10-05, 04:39 AM

How does one define extremes like 'poverty' if not in relation to its opposite, 'wealth'? For some to have much, others have to have little: as you and others have pointed out in other threads, we live in a world of limited resources. Using logic, this means that there can't be infinite growth and infinite wealth for all. It IS a zero-sum game!

I've been under the impression that an increasingly bigger portion of western industry is knowledge based and that it does not consume natural resources to the same extent that traditional industry does. To me it suggests that the issue is at least more complicated than a zero-sum game. Personally, I think the amount of total wealth is increasing, but at the same time I recognize that personal perception of rich and poor is relative to one's immediate surrounding.

russ_watters

May10-05, 10:11 AM

Russ, I just responded to a post you made in another thread in the General Discussion area. I totally understand that you have a thing about marxism and that you want to argue with anyone who supports it, but I was wondering if I could ask you a favour: I'll argue about it with you, but I think it would be best if we confined our discussion to this section of the board (ie, the politics section). Fair enough - though I posted there before seeing this. If you want, you can respond to that post here....

Now how 'bout responding to what you just quoted? That thing about poverty? Here is how successful the most advanced capitalist society in the world (ie, the USA) is... Um, so is that an acknowledgement of the failure of Marxism to predict the fall of capitalism due to runaway poverty or a diversion tactic to avoid dealing with the fact that Marx made a direct prediction (that poverty would increase under capitalism) that failed? Are you playing games here, or what? Acknowledge the facts!!

The data on that site may show that progress still needs to be made - but it also shows that much progress has already been made. That directly contradicts Marx's prediction about poverty increasing under capitalism.

In any case, you are, at least saying some concrete things now that can be examined.... trouble is, they are all, spectacularly wrong. So wrong, in fact, that I'm having trouble accepting that you believe them. How does one define extremes like 'poverty' if not in relation to its opposite, 'wealth'? Well, you define "poverty" the right way. The only way. The way it must be defined: in absolute terms, based on an individual's ability to feed, clothe, house him/herself or family. This is the definition that all poverty statistics are based on because its the only possible basis for them. That's what the word means! I'm a little incredlous that you would so badly misunderstand what "poverty" is. However, it explains an awful lot about your other misunderstandings: For some to have much, others have to have little: as you and others have pointed out in other threads, we live in a world of limited resources. It is incredibly ironic for a Marxist to overlook the greatest resource we have. The resource that Marxism is based on: labor. But beyond that, there are other resources that are essentially unlimited: Sunlight. Water. Air. Using logic, this means that there can't be infinite growth and infinite wealth for all. It IS a zero-sum game! Well, yes - applying logic to factually wrong statements yeilds wrong conclusions. Look, alexandra - the world population just recently went above 6 billion. If wealth were zero sum, even without a change in the distribution there would be half as much available to each individual today as when the population was 3 billion. Is there? Global poverty has decreased by half over that timeframe. If wealth were zero sum, that would not be possible. The US GDP alone shows that there isn't: its grown at an average of like 3% since after the depression. Individual income rates have increased across all segments of society as well. Yes, that's right: in capitalism the poor get richer too!!

Even if you don't like the logic that shows your idea is wrong, the facts show it is wrong. Wealth is not a zero-sum game. It simply isn't possible. Greed and envy? Well, couldn't people critical of an unfair system be motivated by a sense of justice and social conscience? I guess they could be, but that appears not to be the case with Marxism. The simple fact that Marxist ideas have proven to be wrong shows that there must be another motivation for trying to promulgate them. To adopt a personal and individualistic level of discussion for a moment - I, personally, am neither envious of the very rich nor do I want to be in their position. I have enough money for my needs. I am concerned about these issues because I am a human being who is concerned about the way most of my fellow human beings are being forced to live substandard lives to support the most incredibly decadent lifestyles of the few. But see, that's just it: the facts show that your last sentence is simply false. Again, it is a fact that the poverty rate of the world has decreased by half in the past 50 years. It is a fact that China's economy started growing like a rocket since and because they started to embrace (allow) capitalism. Heck, you're living proof: you have enough money for your needs because of capitalism. Before capitalism, there was no such thing as a middle class! I am also concerned about capitalism's insatiable greed for profit, which drives all environmental considerations out of the window and which threatens our planet and our very existence as a species. Those are the things that drive me, not envy or greed. There is no reason why a capitalist society can't adequately deal with environmentalism. Heck, the biggest environmental disaster area in the world is the USSR, not the US. And I can gaurantee that other people who criticise the profit system also do so because of concerns similar to mine rather than because they are envious and greedy and want to be rich themselves. If we were all out for ourselves and wanted only to 'look out for number one', why would we care to argue about anything? We'd be out there, making money! Well, that's just it: its much, much easier to complain than to do the work necessary to make that money.

The thing that is now occurring to me is that you're not separating the philosophy from the theory. Here:Agreed. As you say, different theories begin with different assumptions about what are to be considered 'social truths', but once these assumptions have been decided on and agreed, the study should be independent of the researcher if it is to be worthy of the name 'objective'. Philosophy is something that goes on in your head and is not required to be based on reality. As long as the conclusions logically follow from the premises, it is philosophically "right." The problem here is that you're extending that to reality without basing it in reality. A theory requires that its postulates be based in reality, otherwise, the predictions of the theory will fail. Marx's postulates were not based in reality, and that's why his predictions failed. That's why what you are saying is so wrong: you are refusing to base your ideas on reality.

russ_watters

May10-05, 10:13 AM

...as well as more people falling below poverty levels... Except in the extreme short term (less than 4 years), that is factually wrong. Poverty today is half what it was 50 years ago.

I'm sick and tired of people posting things that are factually wrong as if they were true. Ignorance is not an excuse anymore. You guys have put enough effort into learning about Marxism to know the facts.

alexandra

May10-05, 11:06 AM

Fair enough - though I posted there before seeing this. If you want, you can respond to that post here....

Now how 'bout responding to what you just quoted? That thing about poverty? Um, so is that an acknowledgement of the failure of Marxism to predict the fall of capitalism due to runaway poverty or a diversion tactic to avoid dealing with the fact that Marx made a direct prediction (that poverty would increase under capitalism) that failed? Are you playing games here, or what? Acknowledge the facts!!

Ok, I think we should continue our discussion here - I'm glad you agree. I'll just post a brief response in the other section telling everyone that this is what's happening (in the interests of democracy, so that they know where to go if they're following our argument). And, just before I begin addressing your main points, I just want to assure you that I'm not at all playing games. This discussion is serious to me, russ, and I believe what I argue. I am not out to win an argument for winnings' sake - it's just that I have studied politics for several years and have had a lot of time to think about it. It is too serious to play games about, so rest assured that that is not what I'm doing, ok? Come on, let's get on with it then... It may take me a while (even days) to respond to all the points you make, but I will.

alexandra

May10-05, 11:44 AM

Perception versus reality is interesting. I saw a poll that likewise asked about class (I wish I had saved the information). Of course most Americans respond that they are middle class, even if really more wealthy or more poor (denial?).
You raise an interesting point regarding perception and reality. In one of his classic works, "The German Ideology" (Part I B, at http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1845/german-ideology/ch01b.htm), Marx wrote:
The ideas of the ruling class are in every epoch the ruling ideas, i.e. the class which is the ruling material force of society, is at the same time its ruling intellectual force. The class which has the means of material production at its disposal, has control at the same time over the means of mental production, so that thereby, generally speaking, the ideas of those who lack the means of mental production are subject to it... The individuals composing the ruling class possess among other things consciousness, and therefore think. Insofar, therefore, as they rule as a class and determine the extent and compass of an epoch, it is self-evident that they do this in its whole range, hence among other things rule also as thinkers, as producers of ideas, and regulate the production and distribution of the ideas of their age: thus their ideas are the ruling ideas of the epoch. For instance, in an age and in a country where royal power, aristocracy, and bourgeoisie are contending for mastery and where, therefore, mastery is shared, the doctrine of the separation of powers proves to be the dominant idea and is expressed as an “eternal law.”
In effect, he is saying that through their control of a variety of institutions that produce and disseminate ideas (eg. schools, universities, the media), the ruling class generates consent among the general population so that they find it difficult to question the status quo and to look at their own positions in society objectively: they believe what they are told to believe, even despite their personal experiences (Marx calls this 'false consciousness', when the working class does not see its own interests as a class and both justifies and perpetuates its own exploitation).
Actually, the middle class is probably shrinking, as well as more people falling below poverty levels (assuming the 'level' is established at a real level of poverty). According to Americans in the above it should be set at $35,000?
Yes, that's the meaning I get from the information on that website too: while the official poverty level for a family of four is set at about half that, the people participating in the study said it should be set at $35 000. I personally have no idea what the cost of living in the US is (and I guess to some extent that would depend on where one lived?), so I have no way of giving an informed opinion on this topic. What do US residents think of the two figures given? Is it possible for a family of four to survive on $18 850 a year?

alexandra

May10-05, 11:53 AM

I've been meaning to get back to this thread, first with regard to the global economy and free market concepts.
I know what you mean, SOS2008. It takes me so long to respond to all the posts I mean to respond to because it takes ages to formulate correct, accurate arguments and find supporting evidence.

Thank you for all this information you have provided - it provides a lot of evidence for arguments I'm going to be formulating in this thread, and I will be using lots of it over time. Whew - it seems like a formidable task, but I'll take it slowly and give the key points of my argument over time. This may take more than just *days*, though :frown:

alexandra

May10-05, 12:03 PM

I've been under the impression that an increasingly bigger portion of western industry is knowledge based and that it does not consume natural resources to the same extent that traditional industry does. To me it suggests that the issue is at least more complicated than a zero-sum game. Personally, I think the amount of total wealth is increasing, but at the same time I recognize that personal perception of rich and poor is relative to one's immediate surrounding.
I agree that an increasingly bigger proportion of western industry is knowledge based, and I would even add to your argument against my point by admitting something I had not taken into consideration (I usually post really late at night when I should be sleeping after a full day's work, but I just can't resist this intellectual stimulation :rolleyes: ). Technological developments do mean that existing natural resources (which are finite) can be exploited in different and more efficient ways so, as you say, "the issue is at least more complicated than a zero-sum game". I would not agree with you, however, that total wealth of all individuals is increasing. Perhaps this is the case in some societies, but it is not the case in general, eg. in the US (as discussed in previous posts looking at the increase in poverty). In some societies, a small group of people are getting more and more wealthy while a large group of people are becoming more impoverished. SOS2008 refers to some interesting articles that support my argument at least regarding what is happening in the US.

alexandra

May10-05, 12:44 PM

Now how 'bout responding to what you just quoted? That thing about poverty? Um, so is that an acknowledgement of the failure of Marxism to predict the fall of capitalism due to runaway poverty or a diversion tactic to avoid dealing with the fact that Marx made a direct prediction (that poverty would increase under capitalism) that failed? Are you playing games here, or what? Acknowledge the facts!!.
Russ, I'm not playing games. What I meant by pointing you to the facts on the website you provided me as a reference is that poverty is increasing under capitalism. That is what those facts tell me - that in 2002, poverty increased in the US, which is a capitalist society. So I conclude that (at least in that year) poverty increased in a capitalist society.

I do not acknowledge a failure of Marxism's predictions because I truly believe that history is not yet 'over'. I know that you believe that capitalism has 'won' and is forever more going to be the economic system humanity will live under. I simply do not believe this to be the case. I am not playing games - it's just that my understanding of history (how feudalism was superceded by capitalism, for example) tells me that this (ie, the current dominant social formation, capitalism) is not necessarily how things are going to be forever and ever afterwards. I do not believe in a static social universe - material and social conditions change all the time. I'm not trying to predict what will follow. For all I know, we may revert to some form of totalitarianism - which, by the way, seems unfortunately to be the way we are going (I'm not trying to provoke you, Russ - the evidence points that way to me, that's all). Or our societies may collapse into some form of chaotic anarchy. I find neither scenario desirable, but reason tells me that they are not impossible. And by the way, Marx did not see the transformation from capitalism to socialism as inevitable - history is made by human beings. If the oppressed class (in Marxist terms, the working class) does not take action that leads towards socialism, socialism will not happen. Marx's view of society was not mechanistic; he saw human beings as actors who shaped their own history. I wish you would stop saying that he predicted the advent of socialism with such certainty - he said it would happen "if the working class fulfills its historic mission" (or words to that effect - I can look up the reference if you'd like. I think he wrote about this in "The Manifesto of the Communist Party").

2CentsWorth

May10-05, 02:44 PM

Except in the extreme short term (less than 4 years), that is factually wrong. Poverty today is half what it was 50 years ago.

I'm sick and tired of people posting things that are factually wrong as if they were true. Ignorance is not an excuse anymore. You guys have put enough effort into learning about Marxism to know the facts.If you feel sources of information are so wrong, why don't you provide sources that are true? And 'you guys' meaning I don't know who, and who is ignorant and knows all about Marxism. Personally I only know some basics, and wish I had more time for in-depth reading.

Informal Logic

May10-05, 03:04 PM

Russ, I'm not playing games.Someone is projecting himself on you--don't worry too much about it.

Rev Prez

May10-05, 04:24 PM

I think it was Karl von Clausewitz who said that war was a continuation of politics by other means (not sure, though).

He didn't say it, he wrote it in a not so very long book that very few people who throw around the butchered quote have ever read. And Clausewitz argued that war is a continuation of policy/political commerce, not politics; it is an instrument to achieve a political objective. This is by no means the only scholarly definition of war, and its a definition that's really only useful in the strategic study of warfare between nation-states.

SOS2008

May10-05, 04:36 PM

I know what you mean, SOS2008. It takes me so long to respond to all the posts I mean to respond to because it takes ages to formulate correct, accurate arguments and find supporting evidence.

Thank you for all this information you have provided - it provides a lot of evidence for arguments I'm going to be formulating in this thread, and I will be using lots of it over time. Whew - it seems like a formidable task, but I'll take it slowly and give the key points of my argument over time. This may take more than just *days*, though :frown:I would like to use more academic sources, but you are correct about the time and access constraints. And now I keep thinking about things from the Marxist versus Capitalist perspective. I plan to delve more into the superstructure topic with regard to socialization and human nature... Beginning real quick:
...I've studied political sciences for two years and I am next semester about to start my engineering studies. But I think this topic could use its own thread and especially more knowledgable participants than myself.In the U.S. most universities require PoliSci 101 for all majors, but this class tends to be very geocentric with focus on U.S. constitution, etc. How does Finland compare?

loseyourname

May10-05, 04:55 PM

In the U.S. most universities require PoliSci 101 for all majors, but this class tends to be very geocentric with focus on U.S. constitution, etc. How does Finland compare?

Geocentric means focused on the earth, silly. Should we be studying Martian politics?

Informal Logic

May10-05, 07:56 PM

Geocentric means focused on the earth, silly. Should we be studying Martian politics?That is the common definition, along with reference to geographic coordinates of longitude and latitude (mapping), or other fields such as geocentric and anthropocentric approaches to critical environmental regions for example. However in the social sciences, probably more specifically political science, the term is used with regard to mindset.

One of the biggest examples of a mindset was the geocentric theory in which the earth was the center of the universe. The geocentric theory is the idea that the earth is the center of the universe while the sun, moon, planets, and stars made a complete revolution around the earth each day. This theory was represented well by Claudius Ptolemy. ...Yet, today the geocentric theory seems preposterous, since after all, we know that the earth is not the center of the universe, and in fact that the earth makes one revolution around the sun each year.

We are born into a world of traditions. The traditions that we are born into have sets of rules, written and non-written. We are taught or influenced by our parents, teachers, environment, mind(s), the language(s) we speak, and our biology to believe in certain things and act in certain ways. From this we form a belief system, or mindset. A "mindset" is a perceptual set and through this set we perceive the world. A mindset acts like a filter. It filters out any mental conceptions or realities that do not fit our mindset. http://becomingone.org/bp/bp2.htm

In other words Americans see themselves as the center around which everything else revolves, and this mindset is a result of a focus on themselves, perpetuated for example by our education system and other socialization that may not be very objective.

loseyourname

May10-05, 09:37 PM

russ_watters

May10-05, 09:46 PM

If you feel sources of information are so wrong, why don't you provide sources that are true? That's just it - I have and so has alexandra!! She is saying things that directly contradict her own facts!! She is looking at a blue sky and calling it green. I don't think I can continue with this thread if this absurdity doesn't end. It just keeps getting worse and worse. The crack about sweatshops in the GD thread has three separate, obvious absurdities. I can't begin to fathom how such a thing can be posted with sincerity. That put me over the top.

But in case you missed it, HERE (http://www.osjspm.org/101_poverty.htm) again is the poverty rates for various races in the US since 1959. As you can see, they are, overall, about half today what they were in 1959.

The thing that is hardest to accept about this thread is that these are simple facts. Its not like they require interpretation or are hard to find. A quick google will set you straight if there is any question. That jaw-dropping magnitude and prevalance of factual errors in this thread makes it difficult to accept that people are sincere in their arguments.

alexandra, if you wish to continue discussing this stuff with me, I must insist on sticking to facts and scientific analysis (ironic, the name of this thread). No more word-games, no more contradicting/ignoring facts, no more ignoring of reality. A good starting place would be Marx's prediction on poverty, paraphrased from before:

-------------------------------------------------
Marx's prediction: Under capitalism, poverty will increase until all but a few wealthy people will be poor.

The fact: In the past 50 years, poverty rates have decreased by half in the US and the world in general.

The conclusion: Marx was wrong.
----------------------------------------------------

alexandra, if you cannot acknowledge this simple, straightforward fact and the associated failure of Marxism in this specific case, we really can't continue. And that makes the title of this thread laughable.

edit: oops - looks like I was wrong about one of my facts: The global poverty rate hasn't dropped by half over the past 50 years, its dropped by half over the past twenty years. SOURCE (http://web.worldbank.org/WBSITE/EXTERNAL/NEWS/0,,contentMDK:20194973~menuPK:34463~pagePK:6400301 5~piPK:64003012~theSitePK:4607,00.html). The marjority of that comes from Chinese economic reform (capitalism being allowed in China).

Joel

May11-05, 04:27 AM

I agree that an increasingly bigger proportion of western industry is knowledge based, and I would even add to your argument against my point by admitting something I had not taken into consideration (I usually post really late at night when I should be sleeping after a full day's work, but I just can't resist this intellectual stimulation :rolleyes: ). Technological developments do mean that existing natural resources (which are finite) can be exploited in different and more efficient ways so, as you say, "the issue is at least more complicated than a zero-sum game". I would not agree with you, however, that total wealth of all individuals is increasing. Perhaps this is the case in some societies, but it is not the case in general, eg. in the US (as discussed in previous posts looking at the increase in poverty). In some societies, a small group of people are getting more and more wealthy while a large group of people are becoming more impoverished. SOS2008 refers to some interesting articles that support my argument at least regarding what is happening in the US.

The other way to go is to post when you should be working. Not that I would do that... :blushing: o:)

I agree that not all individual's wealth is increasing and in the US the amount of people living under poverty levels seam to have increased slightly during the last couple of years (while the amount seam to decrease in development countries, according to Russ' link to the world bank). However, I actually thought about the total or average wealth, measured by GDP*, which I think is also increasing globally. And please correct me if I am fumbling in the dark here, but aren't you and SOS' links talking about wealth distribution (in the USA), not total or average amount of wealth?

*OECD economic statistics about USA: http://stats.oecd.org/wbos/viewhtml.aspx?QueryName=29&QueryType=View&Lang=en

Joel

May11-05, 04:36 AM

He didn't say it, he wrote it in a not so very long book that very few people who throw around the butchered quote have ever read. And Clausewitz argued that war is a continuation of policy/political commerce, not politics; it is an instrument to achieve a political objective. This is by no means the only scholarly definition of war, and its a definition that's really only useful in the strategic study of warfare between nation-states.

I admit, I've only stumbled across Clausewith in lecture notes and I quoted him wrong. My bad. :blushing: But why is the definition only usefull in strategic studies between nation-states? He was talking about nation-states, but couldn't the concept be used to understand other armed conflicts as well?

Joel

May11-05, 04:40 AM

Are you sure that any of what you just posted indicates that the word 'geocentric' has any meaning in politics? I've heard of people being accused of being ethnocentric and culturally biased, but never geocentric. If you say so, though.

I can't remember stumbling across 'geocentric' in this context before either - only 'ethnocentric'. But what sos is saying is non the less crystal clear to me.

Joel

May11-05, 05:23 AM

In the U.S. most universities require PoliSci 101 for all majors, but this class tends to be very geocentric with focus on U.S. constitution, etc. How does Finland compare?

First, I'm under the impression that US undergraduate programs are 4 years, while european (including finnish) programs are generally 3 years, at least partly because the first and second degree education is more extensive here. With that said, only majors in all social sciences usually have a compulsory course called 'The finnish political system', which is something of mix between political history, PolSci and an introduction to the EU. As a major in PolSci, we begin with courses about finland, its position in the EU and general courses of political thought. But as a small country, I think international and EU understanding is important, so the graduate studies are often theoretic or internationally oriented. (Everyone does the masters degree).

By comparing the courses offered in the first year (http://www.valt.helsinki.fi/opetus/vol/perus/files/index-en.html) and 4th and 5th year (http://www.valt.helsinki.fi/opetus/vol/syv/files/index-en.html) you will see the difference clearly; finland first and international later.

Generally, I do not think it can be avoided that social science programs are more or less regio- or ethnocentric, but it has both its goods and bads. Simply put, I couldn't possibly represent finland or offer development aid to an african country if I didn't know how my country has survived to this day.

Joel

May11-05, 06:20 AM

For anyone interested, just another OECD link on US economics: Economic Survey - United States 2004: Sustaining strong growth and social cohesion: key challenges (http://www.oecd.org/document/27/0,2340,en_33873108_33873886_31457883_1_1_1_1,00.ht ml)

Ps. Here is what it says about poverty levels:
...

On the other hand, poverty rates have edged up again, and, although they are still below their previous peak in the 1990s, they are very high for some population groups. Continued efforts are necessary to ensure that improvements in social conditions in the 1990s, highlighted in the 2002 Survey, are not reversed.

antfm

May11-05, 09:00 AM

The fact: In the past 50 years, poverty rates have decreased by half in the US and the world in general.
alexandra, if you cannot acknowledge this simple, straightforward fact ...

russ, that is not an objective, simple, straightforward fact. Many experts have critisized those reports of the World Bank. For instance:
http://www1.fee.uva.nl/pp(bin/130fulltext.pdf

Some experts like Pogge and Reddy had already strongly disagreed with the methods to estimate poverty employed by the World Bank in previous years reports.

antfm

May11-05, 09:07 AM

sorry, the right link is:
http://www1.fee.uva.nl/pp/bin/130fulltext.pdf

Joel

May11-05, 09:35 AM

Speaking of wealth indicators, here is an article presenting a few more: http://www.nnn.se/n-model/indexes.htm - Anyone up to the challenge of defining 'wealth', eh? :uhh:

russ_watters

May11-05, 11:20 AM

russ, that is not an objective, simple, straightforward fact. Many experts have critisized those reports of the World Bank. The article discusses issues had with that definition ($1 a day, $2 a day), but those issues do not affect the trend in the data (spectacularly decreasing poverty rates). Whether it decreased from 40% to 20% (World Bank's numbers), 70% to 50%, 80% to 40% (numbers I made up) doesn't change the fact that poverty has decreased. Also, the article does not offer competing numbers.

Besides, alexandra has already cited poverty stats based on that type of data, indicating approval of that yardstick (she then contradicted herself by calling income inequality poverty, but that's another issue...).

russ_watters

May11-05, 11:27 AM

Speaking of wealth indicators, here is an article presenting a few more: http://www.nnn.se/n-model/indexes.htm That's a pretty one sided argument (I don't mean biased, I mean the other side simply doesn't exist), Joel - no economist would ever claim that GDP is the only important factor in determining the wealth of a nation.

Its a little like the common saying about the SAT tests (they measure how good you are at taking the SAT test): ranking nations based on GDP ranks nations based on GDP.

Also, the article leaps off its own point: it really isn't talking about wealth, but about quality of life. They are two completely different concepts - and again, no economist would ever claim they were the same.

edit: also, the purpose/tone of that article seems more political than economic in nature. It's a 'why we are better than the USA' article. - Anyone up to the challenge of defining 'wealth', eh? :uhh: Piece of cake: http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=wealth

-An abundance of valuable material possessions or resources; riches.
-The state of being rich; affluence.
-All goods and resources having value in terms of exchange or use.

The word "wealth" is about money (or posessions worth money). If others want to choose to measure countries based on welfare, that's fine, but its a different word and the two words are not interchangeable. Personally, I think the most relevant way to measure countries against each other is by height. :uhh:

russ_watters

May11-05, 11:42 AM

First, I'm under the impression that US undergraduate programs are 4 years, while european (including finnish) programs are generally 3 years, at least partly because the first and second degree education is more extensive here. In the US, primary and secondary school is about 12 +1 years (kindergarten for the extra year, optional), ending at age 17 or 18. Undergraduate college is 4 years. I too was under the impression that in European countries, they essentially get an extra year of secondary education before college.

Regarding poly sci, I may get flamed for this, but I think it is more relvant for others (Fins, for example) to learn US politics than it is for Americans to learn Finnish politics. Its simply a matter of influence. Since global politics is largely dominated by the US, if you want to learn about global politics, you have to learn about the US. And on a related line of reasoning, learning the 20th century history of politics requires learning Soviet politics, German politics, etc. However, for any country, the primary focus of the political science major should be on that country.

antfm

May11-05, 11:55 AM

the trend in the data (spectacularly decreasing poverty rates)

russ, understand that not everybody, and not for particular ideological interest, admit those estimations of the World Bank. And I mean experts, economists, sociologists, etc. They crtitisize even the characterization of poverty meant by Worl Bank reports.
That they do not present competting numbers doesn't mean that the data of those reports are valid. They are strongly critisized and with very reasoned arguments even for previous years reports, and the World Bank hasn't taken into account that criticism.

Read, for instance:
http://www.monbiot.com/archives/2003/05/06/rich-in-imagination/

alexandra

May11-05, 12:03 PM

That's just it - I have and so has alexandra!! She is saying things that directly contradict her own facts!! She is looking at a blue sky and calling it green. I don't think I can continue with this thread if this absurdity doesn't end. It just keeps getting worse and worse. The crack about sweatshops in the GD thread has three separate, obvious absurdities. I can't begin to fathom how such a thing can be posted with sincerity. That put me over the top.
Ah, Russ, come on, don't be like this. What is happening (and it's perfectly obvious to me) is that you and I can be looking at exactly the same set of facts/statistics, but while you have focused on those facts that support your argument and ignored those that don't, I honed in on the facts that you ignored (on the website you referred me to, with the poverty-level graphs). This is precisely what this thread is all about: the 'world-view' one interprets from determines which facts one pays attention to and what one makes of the facts one is interpreting. This does not, however, mean that I am "looking at a blue sky and calling it green". We are looking at things from different angles, and we are both convinced we are correct. I can see how you can decide that you can't continue the discussion if your aim is to convince me to look at the world the way you do. I know that I will never convince you that I am right and you are wrong (although it would be nice because, of course, I am right :biggrin: ). But having to argue against you is good for me, because it makes me consider my beliefs more deeply and forces me to find evidence and arguments to back up the things I say. In such arguments, I sometimes have to re-think my views as well, and this too is good for me. I am sorry you don't feel like you are benefiting from the discussion. In case you're still interested in continuing the discussion, however, I'm curious about something you wrote: "The crack about sweatshops in the GD thread has three separate, obvious absurdities." What are these absurdities? I'd really like to know.

alexandra

May11-05, 12:22 PM

The other way to go is to post when you should be working. Not that I would do that... :blushing: o:)

I agree that not all individual's wealth is increasing and in the US the amount of people living under poverty levels seam to have increased slightly during the last couple of years (while the amount seam to decrease in development countries, according to Russ' link to the world bank). However, I actually thought about the total or average wealth, measured by GDP*, which I think is also increasing globally. And please correct me if I am fumbling in the dark here, but aren't you and SOS' links talking about wealth distribution (in the USA), not total or average amount of wealth?

*OECD economic statistics about USA: http://stats.oecd.org/wbos/viewhtml.aspx?QueryName=29&QueryType=View&Lang=en
Hi Joel

You're being evil :devil: again! Post when I should be working? What a thought! I sleep when I should be working, of course (to make up for not getting any sleep when I should be sleeping because I'm busy virtually coming to blows with Russ!) :zzz:

GDP is a measure of total wealth, as you say. The Wikipedia definition is:
GDP is defined as the total value of all goods and services produced within that territory during a specified period
But a country's GDP can be increasing overall while the society itself becomes more and more unequal because of unequal wealth distribution (ie, there may be an increase in the number of poor people even if GDP is increasing). Here's a link to a short article that outlines some of the problems of using GDP as an economic indicator: http://dieoff.org/page11.htm

alexandra

May11-05, 12:37 PM

I admit, I've only stumbled across Clausewith in lecture notes and I quoted him wrong. My bad. :blushing: But why is the definition only usefull in strategic studies between nation-states? He was talking about nation-states, but couldn't the concept be used to understand other armed conflicts as well?
Don’t worry about this, Joel. Rev Prez was having a go at me, not you – it was my incorrect quote he was pointing to. In this case, where Prez Rev is concerned I’m the evil one, not you :devil:

Joel

May11-05, 12:51 PM

That's a pretty one sided argument (I don't mean biased, I mean the other side simply doesn't exist), Joel - no economist would ever claim that GDP is the only important factor in determining the wealth of a nation.

Yeah, it is one sided and I don't claim GDP is the only measurement of wealth either (even thou no economist I am), but some of the indexes, at least the Human Development index, is support by economists (Sen & Amanda).

edit: also, the purpose/tone of that article seems more political than economic in nature. It's a 'why we are better than the USA' article.

Oh yess, I also think there is political motivation behind the article (the entire webpage makes a point in presenting the 'nordic modell'). But it appears factually correct, even if it also tries to make a point.

Also, the article leaps off its own point: it really isn't talking about wealth, but about quality of life. They are two completely different concepts - and again, no economist would ever claim they were the same.

...

-An abundance of valuable material possessions or resources; riches.
-The state of being rich; affluence.
-All goods and resources having value in terms of exchange or use.

The word "wealth" is about money (or posessions worth money). If others want to choose to measure countries based on welfare, that's fine, but its a different word and the two words are not interchangeable. Personally, I think the most relevant way to measure countries against each other is by height. :uhh:

I am not that sure, I'd say it is a sound discussion to ask if wealth is only about money (in different forms) or not, and if it then should be called wellfare or not, even from an economic standpoint. Dictionary.com said this:

3. (Econ.)
(a) In the private sense, all property which has a money value.
(b) In the public sense, all objects, esp. material objects, which have economic utility.
(c) Specif. called personal wealth. Those energies, faculties, and habits directly contributing to make people industrially efficient. [Webster 1913 Suppl.]

http://www.dictionary.net/wealth

It also uses welfare and prosperity as its synonymes. I would guess an economic argument about using wealth to represent something else than money has some philosophical basis here.

For example, if a person's longlivety and mental wellbeing increases a persons time and efficacy in the labour market, wouldn't they also increase the wealth he produces?

Altough Sen isn't specific, here is an interesting quote by him on Economics and narrowness:

"Most of modern economics," reminds Sen, "tends to concentrate too heavily on very narrow things, leaving out enormous areas of what are seen as political and sociological factors on the one side, and the philosophical issues on the other. But these issues are often central to economic problems themselves. After all, the subject of modern economics was in a sense founded by Adam Smith, who had an enormously broad view of economics."

http://www.frontlineonnet.com/fl2204/stories/20050225005900400.htm

However, I admit gladly that I am over my head here, so I won't speculate further. I agree that wealth in economics is usually defined as material things with a value measurable in money, but I'm just saying it may be more complicated.

alexandra

May11-05, 01:01 PM

Generally, I do not think it can be avoided that social science programs are more or less regio- or ethnocentric, but it has both its goods and bads. Simply put, I couldn't possibly represent finland or offer development aid to an african country if I didn't know how my country has survived to this day.
Thanks for the interesting information about your studies, Joel. I majored in Political Science at a university in South Africa, and it is interesting to note that the entire three years' of study of my core units focused on general political theory. We read political theory such as Hobbes' 'Leviathan', Hegel's 'Philosophy of Right', Rousseau's 'The Social Contract and Discourses', Kuhn's 'The Structure of Scientific Revolutions', Mills' 'The Power Elite', Miliband's 'The State in Capitalist Society', and we worked through some of Marx's key writings: extracts from 'Capital Volume 1', 'Grundrisse', 'A Contribution to the Critique of Political Economy' and 'The German Ideology'. It was a theory-rich course - very heavy-going, but I learned much from it.

It was only in other units (eg. the 'African Government' units) that we looked at the politics of specific countries, and international affairs were covered separately again. I also studied Industrial Sociology (the sociology of trade unions, where we studied the theory of trade unionism as well as the history of specific trade unions).

alexandra

May11-05, 01:09 PM

http://www.frontlineonnet.com/fl2204/stories/20050225005900400.htm

However, I admit gladly that I am over my head here, so I won't speculate further. I agree that wealth in economics is usually defined as material things with a value measurable in money, but I'm just saying it may be more complicated.
Thanks for this interesting link, Joel. You shouldn't worry about being over your head - we're all learning here :smile:

alexandra

May11-05, 01:35 PM

Regarding poly sci, I may get flamed for this, but I think it is more relvant for others (Fins, for example) to learn US politics than it is for Americans to learn Finnish politics. Its simply a matter of influence. Since global politics is largely dominated by the US, if you want to learn about global politics, you have to learn about the US. And on a related line of reasoning, learning the 20th century history of politics requires learning Soviet politics, German politics, etc.
Well, Russ, I could not agree with you more about what you say here! Amazing - we are in 100% agreement on this one :smile: I wanted to make some comment to this effect when other PF members told me I had no right to comment on US politics since I am not a US citizen. What the US does affects everyone everywhere, so we had better all be aware of US politics.

Joel

May11-05, 01:43 PM

In the US, primary and secondary school is about 12 +1 years (kindergarten for the extra year, optional), ending at age 17 or 18. Undergraduate college is 4 years. I too was under the impression that in European countries, they essentially get an extra year of secondary education before college.

Hmm, it is 12 years here too. It appears we where wrong, at least partly. Our secondary education ends at 18 or 19 and we begin at 6 or 7. Do you start at 5 or 6 if you don't have the one year of kindergarten? And maybe we learn faster when we are older or just have tougher curriculums? Strange.

Regarding poly sci, I may get flamed for this, but I think it is more relvant for others (Fins, for example) to learn US politics than it is for Americans to learn Finnish politics. Its simply a matter of influence. Since global politics is largely dominated by the US, if you want to learn about global politics, you have to learn about the US. And on a related line of reasoning, learning the 20th century history of politics requires learning Soviet politics, German politics, etc. However, for any country, the primary focus of the political science major should be on that country.

I see no need to get upset because of this and I agree. But I think it will be equally important for an american and a finnish global politics major to learn about other influental countries like China (or regions like the EU and middle east). It is also important to focus on one's own country (maybe especially for those interested in international relations) because that's how we can recognize and make explicit our own bias, otherwise we can not hope to learn other countries' politics from their perspective (not to mention that we can not teach others about our own system, which - in my limited understanding - is often how one starts an international career). However, ultimately I think everyone follows their interests and those are not always very reasonable. Why I want to study physics after PolSci is beyond many of my friends, but heh... I'm not reasonable. :smile:

selfAdjoint

May11-05, 02:07 PM

Joel, the year of US schooling are
Preschool. 4 or 5
Kindergarten, 5 or 6
FIrst grade 6 or 7,
...yearly for eight years
Eighth grade 13 or 14,
Highschool Freshman 14 or 15,
HS Sophmore 15 or 16,
HS Junior 16 or 17,
HS Senior 17 or 18.

The two year choices is because a birthday that falls just before the opening day will be assigned to the older class, but one that falls just after it will be assigned to the younger class, so there can be almost a year range between the ages of students in the same class.

The reason US schooling is much less rigorous than that in most other countries is that it is locally based. This is a big passionate issue; local control of the schools. Every school district has an elected school board and the principals and school superintendents report to them. The elected board members, like all pols, woo the voters, which means that parent concerns like "practical subjects" and "rote learning is bad, creativity is good" and "too much homework" keep the learning environment simple and weak.

Joel

May11-05, 03:11 PM

Hi Joel

You're being evil :devil: again! Post when I should be working? What a thought! I sleep when I should be working, of course (to make up for not getting any sleep when I should be sleeping because I'm busy virtually coming to blows with Russ!) :zzz:

:rofl:

...and I sleep when I should be posting! No wait - that's not right! Despite, I belive firmly that being evil and having a personal approach to these 'humanity-like-subjects' helps understanding them.

But a country's GDP can be increasing overall while the society itself becomes more and more unequal because of unequal wealth distribution (ie, there may be an increase in the number of poor people even if GDP is increasing). Here's a link to a short article that outlines some of the problems of using GDP as an economic indicator: http://dieoff.org/page11.htm

Good site, most of the problems where new to me. Perhaps this would be a good time to decide what we actually want to measure? (In regards to the marx right/wrong discussion it could be a good idea to decide which of today's indicators reflect best upon marx definition of wealth)? Here is a short site presenting GDP, GPI and HDI (the human development index I mentioned earlier): http://www.webassistant.com/site/indicators/blog_1.html (I also posted a peer-reviewd article about HDI in the rachel corrie thread if anyone is interested).
Another relevant question in my opinion is: a how big wealth distribution is too big? Thinking rationally: On one hand, I think some form of wealth distribution is needed to enable a free market that generates wealth. On the other hand, at some point the distribution will become so big that the poorer half will prevent the richer half to generate more wealth through crime and other kind of unstability.
Thinking morally: what is the minimum everyone are entitled to, or are they entitled to anything? Is there a moral question of someone getting too much and what would that be?
Considering the different systems in the Nordic countries, USA and South Africa (of which I only know it isn't nordic or american, do you have any good 'under-a-hundred-pages' paper I could get a crash course with, Alex?) I think it is fare to say there is no one right way, even if every way must adhered to all of the questions to some level.

Alright, I've rambled enough.

Joel

May11-05, 03:54 PM

Thank you, SelfAdjoint.
In Finland there is not a clear cut line, most are recommended to start after their seventh birthday, but parents can ask to have their children tested for school readiness at the age of six. Some don't start until they are eight.
All schools are indeed obligated to follow a minimum (quite extensive) national curriculum to which they can make additions according to their own resources. It sounds quite strange to have democratic elections about what should be taught in school; here it is the ministry of education who decides and also pay for it. Why isn't the local or federal government deciding what is taught in public schools in the US?
Some schools here do specialize (eg. in natural sciences or alternative (creative)-learning methods) and there is quite a lot of electives required by the ministry (roughly 1 to 10 courses in physics, 5 to 10 courses in history, etc.), but at the end of high school everyone must pass the 'matriculation exams' that gives more points for further university studies than the grades given by the school and they are arranged by a committee of university professors, so gaps in the teaching will be revealed. While there are clear differences in quality, I have understood that they are not as big as in central european countries and the US. Still Finland ranks high in international comparisons, such as OECD's Pisa reports.
Here you also apply directly to a specific appartment in Uni and you have to do an entrance exame in that subject, which is the main requirement to be accepted. No reference letters are looked upon.

Joel

May11-05, 04:46 PM

Thanks for the interesting information about your studies, Joel. I majored in Political Science at a university in South Africa, and it is interesting to note that the entire three years' of study of my core units focused on general political theory. We read political theory such as Hobbes' 'Leviathan', Hegel's 'Philosophy of Right', Rousseau's 'The Social Contract and Discourses', Kuhn's 'The Structure of Scientific Revolutions', Mills' 'The Power Elite', Miliband's 'The State in Capitalist Society', and we worked through some of Marx's key writings: extracts from 'Capital Volume 1', 'Grundrisse', 'A Contribution to the Critique of Political Economy' and 'The German Ideology'. It was a theory-rich course - very heavy-going, but I learned much from it.

You make my head hurt! :devil: We have been reading about many of those in text books, but not their actual texts. So, I can about tell you the principle idea of many of those works and in what context it has been written, just don't ask me to argue anything based on them.

It was only in other units (eg. the 'African Government' units) that we looked at the politics of specific countries, and international affairs were covered separately again. I also studied Industrial Sociology (the sociology of trade unions, where we studied the theory of trade unionism as well as the history of specific trade unions).

Then our programs seam to be constructed almost vice versa; you have theory first and real politics later, contrary to us!

In finland there are strong trade unions. Each government's budjet is decided in so called 'three base negotiations', where the government and central trade unions participate.
An increasing problem for them here seams to be that while the labour force is getting more educated they do not need the union's services anymore - workers get legal expertise from attorney offices, negotiate woges by themselves, etc. Finland got industrialized after the second world war and since that they have done a lot for factory workers, women workers, minimum wages, etc. So, them getting 'unemployed' is a rather recent development.

alexandra

May11-05, 05:19 PM

You make my head hurt! :devil: We have been reading about many of those in text books, but not their actual texts. So, I can about tell you the principle idea of many of those works and in what context it has been written, just don't ask me to argue anything based on them.
Don't worry about that, Joel - they hurt my head too (except the Marxist works. Well, they hurt my head too, but they were worth spending lots of time trying to decipher).

In finland there are strong trade unions. Each government's budjet is decided in so called 'three base negotiations', where the government and central trade unions participate.
An increasing problem for them here seams to be that while the labour force is getting more educated they do not need the union's services anymore - workers get legal expertise from attorney offices, negotiate woges by themselves, etc. Finland got industrialized after the second world war and since that they have done a lot for factory workers, women workers, minimum wages, etc. So, them getting 'unemployed' is a rather recent development.
Joel, I know very little about Finland's politics. Do you know of any good websites or books I could have a look at? What you wrote above sounds really interesting. Unemployment is a recent phenomenon in Finland? Why? Hmm, I'd really like to know more... I'll see what books I can find in our library.

Joel

May11-05, 05:41 PM

Joel, I know very little about Finland's politics. Do you know of any good websites or books I could have a look at? What you wrote above sounds really interesting. Unemployment is a recent phenomenon in Finland? Why? Hmm, I'd really like to know more... I'll see what books I can find in our library.

Uuups, I was jokingly saying that the labour unions where getting unemployed because they are loosing members. Sorry for confusing you, Alexandra! Unemployment is of course not a recent phenomenon, it is actually quite high (around 10%, depending on who you ask).

Regarding books, I don't know how much is available in English, but this is the one EVERY political scientist in finland has read since the 70' (it has been updated a couple of times!) The finnish political system, by Jaakko Nousiainen (http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0674302117/qid=1115850597/sr=1-1/ref=sr_1_1/103-9380071-1063069?v=glance&s=books) But i warn you, a book really can't get much more boring.

A more recent (and cetanly more readable) book that I would recommend is Manuel Castell's and Pekka Himainen's: The Information Society and the Welfare State The Finnish Model (http://www.oup.com/us/catalog/general/subject/Business/Management/TechnologyManagement/?ci=0199256993&view=usa)

What would you recommend if I wanted to know about South Africa, before and after the aparthied, Mandela and the current situation?

Ps. Here you can get tourist level information: http://virtual.finland.fi/ - Its quite good actually.

alexandra

May11-05, 05:51 PM

Good site, most of the problems where new to me. Perhaps this would be a good time to decide what we actually want to measure? (In regards to the marx right/wrong discussion it could be a good idea to decide which of today's indicators reflect best upon marx definition of wealth)?.
This is a great idea, Joel. I want some time to read this literature and think about it, then we could systematically list (maybe having agreed first with discussion) what indicators we would want to use.

Considering the different systems in the Nordic countries, USA and South Africa (of which I only know it isn't nordic or american, do you have any good 'under-a-hundred-pages' paper I could get a crash course with, Alex?)
South Africa's history has been very complex and turbulent. Wikipedia may be a good starting point (actually - that's a good idea; I can read up the basics about Finland there as well!). South Africa was infamous for being the only country in the world that was racist by law (the policy of racism was called 'apartheid'). Anyway, here's the Wikipedia URL: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_South_Africa
I no longer live in South Africa, though; but it is the political system I studied the most intensively (as well as the politics of some of the surrounding countries, especially Mozambique, Namibia, and Angola).

alexandra

May11-05, 06:06 PM

Regarding books, I don't know how much is available in English, but this is the one EVERY political scientist in finland has read since the 70' (it has been updated a couple of times!) The finnish political system, by Jaakko Nousiainen (http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0674302117/qid=1115850597/sr=1-1/ref=sr_1_1/103-9380071-1063069?v=glance&s=books) But i warn you, a book really can't get much more boring.
:rofl: Hmm, yes, I know about those kinds of books!

A more recent (and cetanly more readable) book that I would recommend is Manuel Castell's and Pekka Himainen's: The Information Society and the Welfare State The Finnish Model (http://www.oup.com/us/catalog/general/subject/Business/Management/TechnologyManagement/?ci=0199256993&view=usa). What would you recommend if I wanted to know about South Africa, before and after the aparthied, Mandela and the current situation?
Thank you - I'll see if I can get a copy of this from our library.

Umm, sorry about my referring you to Wikipedia (and explaining about apartheid, which you are already aware of; silly me :tongue2: ). An excellent book on one of the key events that triggered off resistance to apartheid (the 1976 'Soweto riots') is a book by John Kane-Berman, "Soweto: Black Revolt White Reaction" (published 1978). It's very readable - almost impossible to put down. But it covers just that one event. The other books on my shelf are the more boring kind, and I wouldn't recommend any one of them as being good as a whole (though each has chapters worth reading). I'll think of other references to post later.

Joel

May11-05, 06:18 PM

Thanks for the references, Alexandra! But now I must bid you good night. Until later!

alexandra

May11-05, 06:32 PM

What would you recommend if I wanted to know about South Africa, before and after the aparthied, Mandela and the current situation?
Here's an online reference I just found on South Africa, Joel - it looks ok, but I've only skim-read some of it so I can't guarantee the content: http://www-users.york.ac.uk/~ad15/SApolitics-contents.htm

Joel

May12-05, 05:34 PM

Here's an online reference I just found on South Africa, Joel - it looks ok, but I've only skim-read some of it so I can't guarantee the content: http://www-users.york.ac.uk/~ad15/SApolitics-contents.htm

Excellent page! Thank you also for this.

SOS2008

May12-05, 09:16 PM

I can't remember stumbling across 'geocentric' in this context before either - only 'ethnocentric'. But what sos is saying is non the less crystal clear to me.Thanks Joel. I remember this term being used by a Global Politics professor, and then thought maybe I wasn't spelling it correctly. Getting back to earlier comments about finding scholarly sources online, it is difficult. By searching with the word Political Science I did find various sites, philosophical, etc. that contain references to geocentrism, including theology. Such as the site provided earlier:
Ptolemy used the wrong and illusionary concept of epicycles to explain the apparent movement of the planets in the night. …But it was wrong. How wrong can you be to think that the massive sun circles the earth each day? But because of the prevailing mindset Ptolemy remained king. A mindset can be very compelling.(http://becomingone.org/bp/bp2.htm)

And then this:
The values we hold and promote, what we believe in, and our every day actions all create the state of the world we live in. With increased awareness we hope that we can move from a egocentric and ethnocentric way of thinking and acting into a "worldcentric" way of being, which takes the welfare of all the people and the planet into consideration. (http://www.worldcentric.org/)

So it seems to be used in reference to preconceptions/perceptions, which can also be geographically centric as it were. Moving on…
Regarding poly sci, I may get flamed for this, but I think it is more relvant for others (Fins, for example) to learn US politics than it is for Americans to learn Finnish politics. Its simply a matter of influence. Since global politics is largely dominated by the US, if you want to learn about global politics, you have to learn about the US. And on a related line of reasoning, learning the 20th century history of politics requires learning Soviet politics, German politics, etc.I also agree with this Russ. And because members from other countries speak English in addition to their own language, they can participate in PF (and of course there are many other benefits to having a global language). However, I’ve met many foreigners who know more about American history, government, etc. than Americans do (per the post by selfAdjoint), but it is also sad that Americans have so little understanding about the rest of the world—unable to even point to a country on a globe.
However, for any country, the primary focus of the political science major should be on that country.Here is where I disagree. You are referring to the college level of education, and in my opinion U.S. students should already know about our history, constitution, etc. by then. As for children in earlier grades, I believe it would be good to have them bring in current events articles to discuss, etc. and get them thinking on a more global level. After all, if the U.S. is going to dominate the world, don't you think it would be helpful to know something about it?

That’s it for now…I can see I have some catching up to do. I had jury duty this week, and it put me behind on posting during work. :tongue:

selfAdjoint

May12-05, 09:57 PM

it is also sad that Americans have so little understanding about the rest of the world—unable to even point to a country on a globe.

In a study years ago, US high school students were unable to find the US on a globe. This was explained by the fact that they had never been taught to use maps or globes (!!). Wonder h9w they find their way around the country.

Hmm, just remembered that very many people here in the corner of Wisconsin I live in never do go around the country. It is considered a good thing to die in the house you were born in.

SOS2008

May12-05, 11:06 PM

In a study years ago, US high school students were unable to find the US on a globe. This was explained by the fact that they had never been taught to use maps or globes (!!). Wonder how they find their way around the country.

Hmm, just remembered that very many people here in the corner of Wisconsin I live in never do go around the country. It is considered a good thing to die in the house you were born in.Not to get too off topic, but funny you should say this--some people in my state haven't gone to see the Grand Canyon! I'm about to generalize at risk of being flamed, but the red states, which are more rural seem to be more rigid in such ways--only meat and potatoes please. The entrenchment is deepening, and if it becomes the law that we can only do the missionary position... :tongue: Back on topic, Americans are less likely to travel abroad--granted most Americans only get two weeks vacation though.

alexandra

May13-05, 09:28 AM

In finland there are strong trade unions. Each government's budjet is decided in so called 'three base negotiations', where the government and central trade unions participate.
An increasing problem for them here seams to be that while the labour force is getting more educated they do not need the union's services anymore - workers get legal expertise from attorney offices, negotiate woges by themselves, etc. Finland got industrialized after the second world war and since that they have done a lot for factory workers, women workers, minimum wages, etc. So, them getting 'unemployed' is a rather recent development.
Trade unions around the world seem to be much weaker than they were up to about 1975, so this seems to be a global trend. In Australia, many of the rank and file members rightfully lost faith in the ability of trade unions to look after their interests as the leadership often made deals with government and big business that was to the detriment of the workers. There have also been concerted efforts by the political parties (both Labor and Liberal) to weaken the power of the trade unions, and they have brought in individual workplace agreements to replace collective bargaining. These are all bad signs for the workers, who have no power when they try to stand up for themselves as individuals - so at this stage, big business is definitely winning the battle (but I would argue it has not yet won the war).

selfAdjoint

May13-05, 11:52 AM

Trade unions around the world seem to be much weaker than they were up to about 1975, so this seems to be a global trend. In Australia, many of the rank and file members rightfully lost faith in the ability of trade unions to look after their interests as the leadership often made deals with government and big business that was to the detriment of the workers. There have also been concerted efforts by the political parties (both Labor and Liberal) to weaken the power of the trade unions, and they have brought in individual workplace agreements to replace collective bargaining. These are all bad signs for the workers, who have no power when they try to stand up for themselves as individuals - so at this stage, big business is definitely winning the battle (but I would argue it has not yet won the war).

Of course from a strict marxist point of view, existing trade unions are just a bourgeois institution foisted on the workers through false consciousness. So of course they would decline, since they are part and parcel of the contradictions of capitalism. So a dedicated marxist would see union failure as a sure sign of the coming revolution, just as some christians took the Helsinki Accords as a sign to prepare for the rapture.

arildno

May13-05, 12:33 PM

Not to get too off topic, but funny you should say this--some people in my state haven't gone to see the Grand Canyon!
In order to plunge myself into the abyss of off-topicness:
Although I live close by, I haven't bothered to see the Viking ships here in Oslo.
I've been there once, I think, on an obligatory school trip when I was 10 or so..

alexandra

May14-05, 11:26 AM

Of course from a strict marxist point of view, existing trade unions are just a bourgeois institution foisted on the workers through false consciousness. So of course they would decline, since they are part and parcel of the contradictions of capitalism.. Agreed that marxists do not see trade unions as playing a major role in the transformation of capitalist society. To quote Marx and Engels on this:
...the workers begin to form combinations (Trades’ Unions) against the bourgeois; they club together in order to keep up the rate of wages; they found permanent associations in order to make provision beforehand for these occasional revolts. Here and there, the contest breaks out into riots. Now and then the workers are victorious, but only for a time. The real fruit of their battles lies, not in the immediate result, but in the ever expanding union of the workers....( http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1848/communist-manifesto/ch01.htm#043 )So marxists see trade unionism as providing opportunities for workers to gain crucial organisational skills, nothing more. In fact, trade unions often work against one another and in that sense are not revolutionary organisations. In addition, trade unions can (and historically have) also easily be used to control workers, eg. by the trade union leadership making deals with capital and government to pre-empt strikes.
So a dedicated marxist would see union failure as a sure sign of the coming revolution, just as some christians took the Helsinki Accords as a sign to prepare for the rapture.Not really, selfAdjoint. Union failure is not a sure sign of the coming revolution:-) There are so many variables to take into account - trade unions are not central. The demise of trade unions is, however, a signal that things are changing, and the economic changes this demise heralds may eventually have political ramifications. For example, the fact that workers no longer have collective bargaining power through legal channels will almost certainly lead to the ultimate demise of working conditions (dangerous health and safety practices, longer working hours, decreases in real wages, etc) - although this may take a while. If working conditions deteriorate enough (and there are signs that this may be happening given the rising numbers of 'working poor' in the 'advanced capitalist countries'), then there may be political ramifications.