News A question about objectivity in politics

[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).