News A question about objectivity in politics

[Pengwuino]

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*

Wait a second, penguins don't have clothes!

 

[GENIERE]

Wait a second, penguins don't 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]

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

 

[alexandra]

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

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]

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

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]

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]

@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 doesn't mater if you are convinced by a theory or not. It only matters what theory works and what theory doesnt. I am not too keen on this Uncertainty Principle but eh, what can you say.

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

 

[alexandra]

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]

@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 doesn't mater if you are convinced by a theory or not. It only matters what theory works and what theory doesnt. I am not too keen on this Uncertainty Principle but eh, what can you say.

After glancing at that economist link, I am 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 ( ) 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' I'll see if I can come up with something annoying tomorrow, though

 

[russ_watters]

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]

@Alexandra

Hey, a capitalist debate taht doesn't degenerate into a flame-war after 2 pages, how can i leave?

 

[2CentsWorth]

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]

If you could somehow keep the government out of it and the old corporate tricks that arent really existent in capitalism theory also don't 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]

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]

@Alexandra

Hey, a capitalist debate taht doesn't degenerate into a flame-war after 2 pages, how can i leave?

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]

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 ('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]

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 ('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]

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

 

[russ_watters]

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, 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]

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]

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, 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]

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]

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 criticize 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]

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]

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? 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]

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? 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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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 knowledgeable 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 each other, 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]

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]

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 acknowledgment 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 criticize 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]

...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]

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 acknowledgment 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]

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 possesses 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]

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

 

[alexandra]

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 ). 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]

Now how 'bout responding to what you just quoted? That thing about poverty? Um, so is that an acknowledgment 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]

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]

Russ, I'm not playing games.

Someone is projecting himself on you--don't worry too much about it.

 

[Rev Prez]

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]

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

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 knowledgeable 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]

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]

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]

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.

 

[russ_watters]

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, 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. http://web.worldbank.org/WBSITE/EXTERNAL/NEWS/0,,contentMDK:20194973~menuPK:34463~pagePK:64003015~piPK:64003012~theSitePK:4607,00.html . The marjority of that comes from Chinese economic reform (capitalism being allowed in China).

 

[Joel]

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 ). 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...

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]

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. 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]

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.