News A question about objectivity in politics

[Joel]

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

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

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

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

 

[Joel]

For anyone interested, just another OECD link on US economics: http://www.oecd.org/document/27/0,2340,en_33873108_33873886_31457883_1_1_1_1,00.html

Ps. Here is what it says about poverty levels:

...

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

 

[antfm]

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

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

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

 

[antfm]

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

 

[Joel]

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

 

[russ_watters]

russ, that is not an objective, simple, straightforward fact. Many experts have critisized those reports of the World Bank.

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

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

 

[russ_watters]

Speaking of wealth indicators, here is an article presenting a few more: http://www.nnn.se/n-model/indexes.htm

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

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

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

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

- Anyone up to the challenge of defining 'wealth', eh?

Piece of cake: http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=wealth

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

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

 

[russ_watters]

First, I'm under the impression that US undergraduate programs are 4 years, while european (including finnish) programs are generally 3 years, at least partly because the first and second degree education is more extensive here.

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

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

 

[antfm]

the trend in the data (spectacularly decreasing poverty rates)

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

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

 

[alexandra]

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

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

 

[alexandra]

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

Hi Joel

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

GDP is a measure of total wealth, as you say. The Wikipedia definition is:

GDP is defined as the total value of all goods and services produced within that territory during a specified period

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

 

[alexandra]

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?

Don’t worry about this, Joel. Rev Prez was having a go at me, not you – it was my incorrect quote he was pointing to. In this case, where Prez Rev is concerned I’m the evil one, not you

 

[Joel]

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

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

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

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

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

...

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

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

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

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

http://www.dictionary.net/wealth

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

[alexandra]

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

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

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

 

[alexandra]

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

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

Thanks for this interesting link, Joel. You shouldn't worry about being over your head - we're all learning here

 

[alexandra]

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

Well, Russ, I could not agree with you more about what you say here! Amazing - we are in 100% agreement on this one I wanted to make some comment to this effect when other PF members told me I had no right to comment on US politics since I am not a US citizen. What the US does affects everyone everywhere, so we had better all be aware of US politics.

 

[Joel]

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

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

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

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

 

[selfAdjoint]

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

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

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

 

[Joel]

Hi Joel

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

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

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

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

Alright, I've rambled enough.

 

[Joel]

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

 

[Joel]

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

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

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

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

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

 

[alexandra]

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

Don't worry about that, Joel - they hurt my head too (except the Marxist works. Well, they hurt my head too, but they were worth spending lots of time trying to decipher).

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

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

 

[Joel]

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

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

Regarding books, I don't know how much is available in English, but this is the one EVERY political scientist in finland has read since the 70' (it has been updated a couple of times!) The finnish political system, by Jaakko Nousiainen But i warn you, a book really can't get much more boring.

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

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

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

 

[alexandra]

Good site, most of the problems where new to me. Perhaps this would be a good time to decide what we actually want to measure? (In regards to the marx right/wrong discussion it could be a good idea to decide which of today's indicators reflect best upon marx definition of wealth)?.

This is a great idea, Joel. I want some time to read this literature and think about it, then we could systematically list (maybe having agreed first with discussion) what indicators we would want to use.

Considering the different systems in the Nordic countries, USA and South Africa (of which I only know it isn't nordic or american, do you have any good 'under-a-hundred-pages' paper I could get a crash course with, Alex?)

South Africa's history has been very complex and turbulent. Wikipedia may be a good starting point (actually - that's a good idea; I can read up the basics about Finland there as well!). South Africa was infamous for being the only country in the world that was racist by law (the policy of racism was called 'apartheid'). Anyway, here's the Wikipedia URL: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_South_Africa
I no longer live in South Africa, though; but it is the political system I studied the most intensively (as well as the politics of some of the surrounding countries, especially Mozambique, Namibia, and Angola).

 

[alexandra]

Regarding books, I don't know how much is available in English, but this is the one EVERY political scientist in finland has read since the 70' (it has been updated a couple of times!) The finnish political system, by Jaakko Nousiainen But i warn you, a book really can't get much more boring.

Hmm, yes, I know about those kinds of books!

A more recent (and cetanly more readable) book that I would recommend is Manuel Castell's and Pekka Himainen's: http://www.oup.com/us/catalog/general/subject/Business/Management/TechnologyManagement/?ci=0199256993&view=usa. What would you recommend if I wanted to know about South Africa, before and after the aparthied, Mandela and the current situation?

Thank you - I'll see if I can get a copy of this from our library.

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

 

[Joel]

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

 

[alexandra]

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

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

 

[Joel]

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

Excellent page! Thank you also for this.

 

[SOS2008]

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

Thanks Joel. I remember this term being used by a Global Politics professor, and then thought maybe I wasn't spelling it correctly. Getting back to earlier comments about finding scholarly sources online, it is difficult. By searching with the word Political Science I did find various sites, philosophical, etc. that contain references to geocentrism, including theology. Such as the site provided earlier:

Ptolemy used the wrong and illusionary concept of epicycles to explain the apparent movement of the planets in the night. …But it was wrong. How wrong can you be to think that the massive sun circles the Earth each day? But because of the prevailing mindset Ptolemy remained king. A mindset can be very compelling.

(http://becomingone.org/bp/bp2.htm)

And then this:

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

(http://www.worldcentric.org/)

So it seems to be used in reference to preconceptions/perceptions, which can also be geographically centric as it were. Moving on…

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

I also agree with this Russ. And because members from other countries speak English in addition to their own language, they can participate in PF (and of course there are many other benefits to having a global language). However, I’ve met many foreigners who know more about American history, government, etc. than Americans do (per the post by selfAdjoint), but it is also sad that Americans have so little understanding about the rest of the world—unable to even point to a country on a globe.

However, for any country, the primary focus of the political science major should be on that country.

Here is where I disagree. You are referring to the college level of education, and in my opinion U.S. students should already know about our history, constitution, etc. by then. As for children in earlier grades, I believe it would be good to have them bring in current events articles to discuss, etc. and get them thinking on a more global level. After all, if the U.S. is going to dominate the world, don't you think it would be helpful to know something about it?

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

 

[selfAdjoint]

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

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

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

 

[SOS2008]

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

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

Not to get too off topic, but funny you should say this--some people in my state haven't gone to see the Grand Canyon! I'm about to generalize at risk of being flamed, but the red states, which are more rural seem to be more rigid in such ways--only meat and potatoes please. The entrenchment is deepening, and if it becomes the law that we can only do the missionary position... Back on topic, Americans are less likely to travel abroad--granted most Americans only get two weeks vacation though.

 

[alexandra]

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

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

 

[selfAdjoint]

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

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

 

[arildno]

Not to get too off topic, but funny you should say this--some people in my state haven't gone to see the Grand Canyon!

In order to plunge myself into the abyss of off-topicness:
Although I live close by, I haven't bothered to see the Viking ships here in Oslo.
I've been there once, I think, on an obligatory school trip when I was 10 or so..

 

[alexandra]

Of course from a strict marxist point of view, existing trade unions are just a bourgeois institution foisted on the workers through false consciousness. So of course they would decline, since they are part and parcel of the contradictions of capitalism..

Agreed that marxists do not see trade unions as playing a major role in the transformation of capitalist society. To quote Marx and Engels on this:

...the workers begin to form combinations (Trades’ Unions) against the bourgeois; they club together in order to keep up the rate of wages; they found permanent associations in order to make provision beforehand for these occasional revolts. Here and there, the contest breaks out into riots. Now and then the workers are victorious, but only for a time. The real fruit of their battles lies, not in the immediate result, but in the ever expanding union of the workers...( http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1848/communist-manifesto/ch01.htm#043 )

So marxists see trade unionism as providing opportunities for workers to gain crucial organisational skills, nothing more. In fact, trade unions often work against one another and in that sense are not revolutionary organisations. In addition, trade unions can (and historically have) also easily be used to control workers, eg. by the trade union leadership making deals with capital and government to pre-empt strikes.

So a dedicated marxist would see union failure as a sure sign of the coming revolution, just as some christians took the Helsinki Accords as a sign to prepare for the rapture.

Not really, selfAdjoint. Union failure is not a sure sign of the coming revolution:-) There are so many variables to take into account - trade unions are not central. The demise of trade unions is, however, a signal that things are changing, and the economic changes this demise heralds may eventually have political ramifications. For example, the fact that workers no longer have collective bargaining power through legal channels will almost certainly lead to the ultimate demise of working conditions (dangerous health and safety practices, longer working hours, decreases in real wages, etc) - although this may take a while. If working conditions deteriorate enough (and there are signs that this may be happening given the rising numbers of 'working poor' in the 'advanced capitalist countries'), then there may be political ramifications.

 

[alexandra]

However, ultimately I think everyone follows their interests and those are not always very reasonable. Why I want to study physics after PolSci is beyond many of my friends, but heh... I'm not reasonable.

Joel, I totally understand this. I see politics as my 'duty' - there is so much wrong with the world, so many people suffering and dying needlessly... But my real love, and what I am trying to study and learn more about in my spare time (which has much diminished since I found PF!) is maths and cosmology. If only these pressing social problems didn't exist, I would devote my life to studying maths - to me, there is nothing more beautiful (sigh)

 

[alexandra]

Perhaps this would be a good time to decide what we actually want to measure? (In regards to the marx right/wrong discussion it could be a good idea to decide which of today's indicators reflect best upon marx definition of wealth)? Here is a short site presenting GDP, GPI and HDI (the human development index I mentioned earlier): http://www.webassistant.com/site/indicators/blog_1.html (I also posted a peer-reviewd article about HDI in the rachel corrie thread if anyone is interested).
Another relevant question in my opinion is: a how big wealth distribution is too big? Thinking rationally: On one hand, I think some form of wealth distribution is needed to enable a free market that generates wealth. On the other hand, at some point the distribution will become so big that the poorer half will prevent the richer half to generate more wealth through crime and other kind of unstability.
Thinking morally: what is the minimum everyone are entitled to, or are they entitled to anything? Is there a moral question of someone getting too much and what would that be?

Joel, I think it's time you started a thread (evil grin ). Seriously, though, I think you raise a point that many others may find interesting: by what criteria do we measure the well-being of societies? It wouldn't really fit under the heading of this thread, but I think it may result in some interesting discussion if we created a new thread for it. But I have my hands full answering in this thread, so I was wondering if you would do the honours of starting another discussion on this (it was your idea, in any case, and I wouldn't want to 'steal' it and get you with me).