News Economic Systems: Probing the Debate of Communism vs. Socialism

[alexandra]

You have too negative a view of politicians. I know it is "politically correct" to say that politicians are a bunch of rotten corrupt powerhungry and greedy tyrans ; I'm not convinced that that is in general true.

Yikes, vanesch! Politically correct? Aargh, no - please don't accuse me of that I pride myself on being an independent thinker, and I can assure you that no-one I know thinks of my views as in any way politically correct (I'd be really worried if they did!).

After all, a political career is way less certain and way less remunerated than a career in business: so if they wanted money that's what they would do. I think that most people who go into politics do that because they want to do something for society, and have some ideal. And then the practical details come in: they have to please, to be elected, once they get some power, they are exposed to unethical deals, they have to make compromise... and when they finally arrive at very influencial positions, there is not much that's left from the initial ideal they had in mind when they started out. I think that many politicians take the *right* decisions, as long as they DON'T want to please. Unfortunately, more and more, a political career looks like a "voter's capital" management, in which politicians decide as a function of what pleases most their electorate, instead of deciding according to a vision of matters they have.

My cynicism runs very deep. Perhaps some politicians do start out with ideals but, as you say, soon get corrupted. Perhaps France is different (I just don't know anything about modern French politics - I know a little bit about historical French politics surrounding the Revolution, of course) - in the countries whose politics I have studied, the politicians are all in the pockets of big business. They do not feel accountable to the voters - they feel (and are) accountable to big business, and they lie to the voters to get into power. And it's a lot more complex than that. I have studied some Journalism units, and as part of those studies had to research the role of Murdoch's newspapers in engineering consent for specific political parties in Australian elections. That research was quite an eye-opener: media owners basically determine the 'line' pursued by journalists and editors working on their newspapers, and so indirectly they determine the outcomes of elections. France may be different, though - as I said, I don't know enough to have an informed opinion.

A very arrogant, but maybe true, statement of former french president Mitterand was: "I'm the last great statesman of France: after me, you will only see bookkeepers"

I don't know much about Mitterand, but his assertion made me laugh

 

[vanesch]

in the countries whose politics I have studied, the politicians are all in the pockets of big business.

There are places where that's certainly the case, and often there is a link between media monopoly and this situation. Italy is an example, with Berlusconi. But most other European countries do not suffer from that problem - as far as I can see. What is of course the case is that many politicians are somehow sold to a certain electorate. For instance, in france, the electorate of Chirac is typically the farmers (those that didn't switch yet to extreme right). That explains, for instance, his insistance on these famous European aids for farmers. Some more right-wing parties are sold to the practicing catholics. The extreme-right wing (fascist) parties essentially recrute in the low-paid workers sphere, and, very funny, in the immigrants sphere.

The social-democrats in france are sold to the worker's unions (in fact, most of them CAME from the worker's unions) and to a strange kind of "pseudo intellectual left" (people who have all the characteristics of right-wing voters, like owners of real-estate, businesses etc..., but where it became fashionable to be "left" to get a kind of intellectual stamp). There is a party in france which is devoted to businesses - it doesn't have much success, and is now absorbed into Chirac's moderate right wing union. And then there are several left wing parties with independent programs from the social democrats ; each of them doesn't weight much (there is the communist party, there are 2 Trotskist parties, there is the green party, there are a few parties centered around the promotion of different ethnicities, there's a women's party ...) They hover in fact around the social-democratic party and jump on the train when the social-democrats win the elections.

 

[Smasherman]

I don't have a background in much of anything (I'm 16), but I spend a lot of time thinking about problems (I know I am too young, but I am too old to stop, too).

Also, have you read the book Ishmael? It describes our cultural problems very well, in a story form (not allegory). I could summarize the problems, but it'd be better to read Ishmael, since it's written to allow a fuller understanding.

Ishmael doesn't offer solutions, but rather a new viewpoint to use to solve our problems.

 

[alexandra]

I entirely agree with your analysis - I didn't mean to say that "in the old days it was much better". What has happened, however, is the following: this "self construction of your own knowledge" (one of its favorite promotors is our good own Charpak) has its limits. While it can be fun to illustrate something, or to get started or so, you cannot expect from your average - good student to rediscover, on his own, even guided, about 2500 years of development from the smartest people in history. The trial and error method is simply too slow and inefficient. But because this was seen as "progressive", instead of considering as an eventual method to ACHIEVE educational goals (which could be tested scientifically, by comparing different methods on representative samples of students, and see how good or bad the methods are in reality), they became, for pseudo-political reasons, the GOAL. And because these methods work very well for learning how to color cubes, but not on how to fit together a correct abstract proof in Euclidean geometry (how do you do that "constructively", except if your name is Euclid or the like), they CHANGED the objectives: the method became the goal.

Absolutely correct, vanesch - I think it takes an incredibly skilled and dedicated teacher to properly pull off the constructivist teaching method because, as you point out, it has to be done much more efficiently than the 'trial and error method': the teacher (they call them 'facilitators' now; 'teacher' is politically incorrect - I still use the word 'teacher' ) has to really know their stuff and, as you say further down...

You cannot require from your average math teacher to have the level of a hotshot university professor: otherwise he'd not be teaching in high school, for the salary he gets and the working conditions he has. But even that would not be sufficient because usually a university professor has not the RIGHT pedagogical skills to deal with adolescents (he usually takes a certain maturity in the student for granted).

So, we're stuck with pretty 'average quality' teachers and, even if we got real discipline experts into high schools, they wouldn't know the crucial pedagogic principles (and are generally not terribly good communicators in any case )

Well, I would think that part of the interest of teaching mathematics in high school is to make kids used to ABSTRACT reasoning, exactly because they should get their thinking INDEPENDENT of practical contexts. The main goal is NOT that they have an intuitive understanding of geometrical problems as "pieces of cardboard", but that they can think about it without making this association ; and then, once they master the abstract way of thinking, that they can apply it to cardboard situations (but not that they need the cardboard picture to help them do the reasoning). So I think - especially in mathematics - that people trying to do that missed ENTIRELY the whole educational interest of mathematics teaching ! The aim is NOT to be able to solve practical problems - the aim is to learn to think abstractly. The by-product is that you can also solve practical problems.

Again, I agree with you. It boils down to how best to teach abstract reasoning. I need to do a lot more research on this, but intuitively (and yes, intuition is not good enough on such an important issue) I would have thought that referring backwards and forwards from the abstract to the concrete (making constant links throughout the teaching) may be an effective method. The currently accepted 'best practice' teaching principles in primary school mathematics is to start off with the concrete and gradually introduce abstraction - but while this makes sense at the primary school level, I can see (now that I'm thinking about it more ) that maybe it wouldn't work at the higher levels. But on the other hand, studying Calculus at university level - the textbooks cover the abstract theoretical concepts, but then also include sections of practical applications from discipline areas like physics and biology...

Again, I agree that we should not return to the 50-ies teaching per se. There were problems, the main one being that the "good" student was the perfect parrot. But AT LEAST he learned something, and those that DID understand, got a very good education. Now, the good average to brightest are simply WASTED (except if their parents can give them extra education, themselves, or by paying extra courses). The dummies have fun, and are mislead in thinking they are good at maths, which makes them make choices where they get completely blocked, 3 or 4 years later.

Hmm, yes - true. But this does not hold only for maths. At least in this country, it seems to hold in every discipline area. I teach people who have actually (in some cases) completed all their years of formal schooling and 'passed', and yet they still cannot write an essay (or even a basic sentence - or even spell my name correctly ) And they have absolutely no knowledge of history or current events

I think the goals and the methods are 2 different things: the goals should be: a good capacity of abstract reasoning (correct proof vs. flawed proof etc...), and good problem solving skills. For the methods, all options are good, but you could test their efficiency scientifically on representative samples.

When I studied maths in high school (in another country), we studied geometry and the formal geometrical proofs intensively as part of the mathematics curriculum. In Australia, however, students do not study the formal geometrical proofs any more. I find this absolutely incomprehensible (primary school children are also not taught how to do 'long division' any more - crazy!)

Maybe that's the mistake: that they think they have to take practical courses instead of fundamental ones. It is a matter of INFORMING people correctly. University professors, instead of being in their ivory tower, should try to CONVINCE their business partners who cofinance them, that a certain amount of fundamental and theoretical teaching is absolutely essential in the education of good co-workers. I know that this tendency has already started, where businesses take care of the "practical" education, and ask universities to ensure the more theoretical aspects.

No, it is not. It is the fault of the pure mathematicians that fail to convince the value of their work to society. Of course, there needs to be public funding of these matters, but I think there is also the error of a certain ivory-tower arrogance from the part of the universities.
Fundamental materials are to universities what are long-term investments for businesses.

And at this point, vanesch, is where our differences begin - my understanding of capitalism (derived from observations of what is happening in the higher education sector) is that it is not interested in investments that do not yield a return in the short-term. If you can 'mass produce' enough engineers who can basically 'do the job' (however superficial their knowledge is), and you can do this more quickly and with less money by making them all do applied maths courses and cutting out the theoretical, abstract, 'useless rubbish' (note, I do not believe it is 'useless rubbish'!), then that's 'good enough'. Personally, I think the whole system will implode on them (the 'free market' economic rationalists) precisely because, as you write, "theoretical teaching is absolutely essential in the education of good co-workers" - and by the time they realize it (business types need to actually see the proof; they are hopeless at extrapolating!) it'll be too late: the university system will be in tatters by then. Personally, I don't think pure mathematicians have either the political nous or the persuasive skills to convince business and political leaders of anything - you cannot convince those in power to see what it does not suit them to see when it comes to their short-term profit margins.

 

[alexandra]

I don't have a background in much of anything (I'm 16), but I spend a lot of time thinking about problems (I know I am too young, but I am too old to stop, too).

Wow, Smasherman - very impressive Keep on reading and thinking... you already seem to have a better understanding and more developed critical thinking skills than many people I have talked to who are twice your age!

Also, have you read the book Ishmael? It describes our cultural problems very well, in a story form (not allegory). I could summarize the problems, but it'd be better to read Ishmael, since it's written to allow a fuller understanding.

Ishmael doesn't offer solutions, but rather a new viewpoint to use to solve our problems.

Thanks for the reference - I haven't heard of this book, but I will certainly locate and read it.

 

[alexandra]

There are places where that's certainly the case, and often there is a link between media monopoly and this situation. Italy is an example, with Berlusconi.

Ah yes, Berlusconi is the perfect example of big business, the media and politics all coming together - a very blatant example of what happens in other countries just a bit more subtly in that while all the powerful belong to the same class, they aren't the exact same person!

But most other European countries do not suffer from that problem - as far as I can see. What is of course the case is that many politicians are somehow sold to a certain electorate. For instance, in france, the electorate of Chirac is typically the farmers (those that didn't switch yet to extreme right). That explains, for instance, his insistance on these famous European aids for farmers. Some more right-wing parties are sold to the practicing catholics.

Yes, this is true here. In the Australian Coalition (formed between the Liberal Party and the National Party because neither historically had the numbers to win an election on their own), the National Party generally represents the interests of the rural sector (the farmers) while the Liberal Party represents the interests of big business. The Australian Labor Party has totally lost its support base (as have labour parties throughout the west, I think) because its policies have moved to the right and are now identical to the policies of the Liberals. The working class has been punishing Labor for this for years now, but because of the wider politico-economic structure and the spread of global capitalism, Labor cannot bring back popular policies that favour the working class so they're dead as a political force. In my opinion, they may as well just pack up and join the Liberals! The working class needs to organise its own party now.

The extreme-right wing (fascist) parties essentially recrute in the low-paid workers sphere, and, very funny, in the immigrants sphere.

LOL - yes, it's amazing how some groups of people crazily vote in direct opposition to their own interests! Things have gotten so confused, sizeable groups of people don't even seem to be able to identify what their own interests are any more.

The social-democrats in france are sold to the worker's unions (in fact, most of them CAME from the worker's unions) and to a strange kind of "pseudo intellectual left" (people who have all the characteristics of right-wing voters, like owners of real-estate, businesses etc..., but where it became fashionable to be "left" to get a kind of intellectual stamp). There is a party in france which is devoted to businesses - it doesn't have much success, and is now absorbed into Chirac's moderate right wing union. And then there are several left wing parties with independent programs from the social democrats ; each of them doesn't weight much (there is the communist party, there are 2 Trotskist parties, there is the green party, there are a few parties centered around the promotion of different ethnicities, there's a women's party ...) They hover in fact around the social-democratic party and jump on the train when the social-democrats win the elections.

French politics sound incredibly complex, vanesch. The 'pseudo intellectual left' sounds like a hilarious (but also quite a sad) group - rich 'socialists'?

 

[vanesch]

Ah yes, Berlusconi is the perfect example of big business, the media and politics all coming together - a very blatant example of what happens in other countries just a bit more subtly in that while all the powerful belong to the same class, they aren't the exact same person! Yes, this is true here.

It is indeed a danger. I'd say that as long as there are SEVERAL different groups having their different influences in the media, it isn't so bad. It is when effective monopolies arise that there is a real danger of positive feedback and latch-up: political power< -> media power <-> business power. It has been suggested over here that the media became such an important power in society that they should be given a special status ; instead of having 3 fundamental 'forces' (the legislative power, the executive power, and justice), that one should add 'news media' as a 4th force, so that media would become a pillar whose independance would be as much guaranteed (by independent legal review commitees) as the independence of justice - so that there would be some "high court of journalists" whose mission is to crack down on every attempt to influence the news media.

The working class has been punishing Labor for this for years now, but because of the wider politico-economic structure and the spread of global capitalism, Labor cannot bring back popular policies that favour the working class so they're dead as a political force.

Yes, that's about everywhere the same thing ; problem is, the old electorate of social-democrats usually goes extreme: right or left. (and usually more right than left...)

The 'pseudo intellectual left' sounds like a hilarious (but also quite a sad) group - rich 'socialists'?

Yes, they even have a name here: "bobo - socialists". I know one personally: he's a university professor, married to the daughter of a Greek boat fleet owner (yeah! like in the movies), his father was a colonel, he talks full of dispise about the "stupid workers fixing his fancy appartment on the mediteranian" which he pays unofficially, but an extreme-left wing activist who distributes tracts and so on, and goes playing bongo in the park with other "activists". He regularly asks me if I don't want to join. Crazy guy !

 

[alexandra]

It is indeed a danger. I'd say that as long as there are SEVERAL different groups having their different influences in the media, it isn't so bad. It is when effective monopolies arise that there is a real danger of positive feedback and latch-up: political power< -> media power <-> business power. It has been suggested over here that the media became such an important power in society that they should be given a special status ; instead of having 3 fundamental 'forces' (the legislative power, the executive power, and justice), that one should add 'news media' as a 4th force, so that media would become a pillar whose independance would be as much guaranteed (by independent legal review commitees) as the independence of justice - so that there would be some "high court of journalists" whose mission is to crack down on every attempt to influence the news media.

The problem is, though, that the trend seems to be in the opposite direction: towards more concentrated corporate ownership and control rather than towards more independence. For instance, here's an exctract from the International Federation of Journalists' website:

Every year the process of media concentration is increasing and with it comes growing concern for the impact on media quality, pluralism and diversity.

Public concern about corporate and political dominance over media and information services is greater than ever. Confidence among readers, viewers, listeners and users of information is low and there is an increasing perception that journalism is failing to carry out its watchdog role in society because of the vested interests that drive the media business. Reference: http://www.ifj.org/default.asp?Issue=OWNER&Language=EN

I do not personally agree with their next statement (which I believe is a result of flawed analysis on the part of the International Federation of Journalists, but I will include it so I am not accused of being selective in the facts I present):

Not surprisingly, politicians are worried, too. The media concentration process has paralysed policy makers and it is time to stimulate fresh debate and prepare concrete actions to confront the challenge of corporate power in mass media. Reference: http://www.ifj.org/default.asp?Issue=OWNER&Language=EN

And here is my reason for being skeptical about their previous statement (funny how they can see this themselves, yet not draw the obvious conclusions)

The IFJ says the market itself cannot protect pluralism and diversity. The public’s need to be properly informed means that information services must be regulated beyond the market framework of ratings, profits and commercial objectives.
Reference: http://www.ifj.org/default.asp?Issue=OWNER&Language=EN