Economic Systems: Probing the Debate of Communism vs. Socialism

[GENIERE]

. . . his system reflects his broad but shallow understanding of human nature.

Amen! Time to end this vacuous thread or move it to a religious forum.

...

 

[vanesch]

Perhaps the experiment of socialism (if it could get a chance to run its course) would work; it's just never had that chance. Every time the powerful capitalists and their supporters were threatened by any form of socialism, they did their utmost to subvert and sabotage the socialist experiment - and they always succeeded.

I don't think there are many capitalist societies (I mean, if you get picky, and you say that the former USSR and China and so on were not "true communist" systems, then there has never been a true capitalist system either: there have always been regulations and taxes of some kind) - and I'm glad about that honestly. But if you take the western societies as "capitalist" which succeed systematically in sabotaging socialist experiments, then you will have to accept that this is an inherent instability of the socialist system: it is sufficient that there is a pocket of capitalist societies and they always succeed in making the socialist experiment fail.

While the capitalist experiment has been allowed to run its course for about 300 years now (and look what a mess it's gotten us into), the socialist experiment has just never happened.

I don't think that there has been any "capitalist experiment" any more than a communist experiment. And rightly so: I think that those idealised societies are absolute horrors. Give me a nice, complicated, dynamical society with some elements of democracy, power games, changing influences and lousy politicians instead !

 

[vanesch]

Sure - but the other system (the deformed 'worker's state' that was the USSR) made excellent spaceships! (Just a little joke, vanesch).

I agree with you ! I think that the free market works very well for consumer products and things with a short time scale. I think it works badly for large scale ambitious projects with long timescales and where expertise knowledge is more important than consumer opinions, like in building spaceships. That's why American personal computers are very good and former Russian photographic cameras were lousy and heavy, and why French trains are better than UK trains (very simplified vision :-).

 

[alexandra]

Amen! Time to end this vacuous thread or move it to a religious forum.

...

:zzz:...

 

[alexandra]

I hope I won't interfere with your discussion, but I'd like to ask and comment a few things.

All discussion is welcome, Joel

Really, everything? I mean, for example the OECD is recommending more attendance to public health care in America, in other words, probably a bigger public sector. And OECD is an organization, which's purpose is to further democracy and market economy.

I don't have as much faith as you do in the OECD, Joel - I don't believe it could get the US administration to do anything it says. I have tried to find information about its powers on the internet, but have had no luck so far. I would be really grateful if somebody could point me to some information about exactly what enforcement powers the OECD has – does it only make recommendations, or can it ‘punish’ member nations that do not follow its policies? Could it enforce any resolution? How? I mean, could it enforce sanctions or something on a member state? I would really like to know.

In finland the agency of free competition busted major companies in the paper industry for forming cartels.

I don’t know about this either. Did the OECD do this? How? Could it do the same in the US?

The Oil market (as I think was pointed out somewhere) is far from free, in the sense that OPEC countries are agreeing on prices in a very cartel-like fashion. So, while I don't know the reasons for the Oil price increase, it may very well be for other reasons than a free competition.

The OPEC cartel, it seems from the article I’ve quoted previously, will now be replaced by another cartel comprising the mega-oil corporations of Chevron, Exxon, BP and Shell. I don’t understand how this will be any better…

But when you say, "the people being in collective control" it is still one institution, one interest, one 'collective people' that is in power, isn't it? Generally I understand there are many problems with direct democracy, one being that it is in precise very hard to have everyone vote on most things and that a majority opinion is seldom the best for the majority. Hence the representative democratic systems we have, where the practical problems are overcome and the professional politicans (and especially the ministries that are doing the bulk of the work) can devote all their time to put together various proposals. After all, I find that most political descissions go past me simply because I lack the time to study them properly.

I believe that because of the available technology, it is now possible and practical to implement systems of direct democracy: we vote electronically. I totally disagree with the view that “a majority opinion is seldom the best for the majority” – this is an ideological difference we have, and we can’t settle it. You won’t convince me to believe this, and I won’t convince you to believe otherwise. I deeply believe in the ability of ordinary people to know what is best for them – especially if they are given the benefit of having an informed opinion and are not subjected to the propaganda they are currently subjected to in what pass as ‘news reports’. I don’t have any faith in professional politicians at all – not at this point in time, because they are trained to support the status quo and would not survive as politicians if they didn’t. I do have to concede that the lack of time to become well informed about issues may be a setback to real democracy; that would be a challenge one would have to address somehow.

I will have to disagree with capitalism and democracy being incompatible. I'd say that democracy is heavily dependant on a market economy and individual property rights.

Consider Emil Durkheim's theory of division of labour; I understand he says that because of the ever increasing division of labour, people in a modern society (in begginning of the 20th century!) will need (and want) more than they can produce alone. This interdependence will also lead to an increased solidarity between people (because they will have to trust that the next person does his part) and thus to a 'collective conscience' of what is good for the society. Another word for collective 'collective conscience' would perhaps be 'a norm', an understanding of what is undesired (often criminalized, unethical and/or unfunctional) behavior that will be damaging for most people.

But this in no way repudiates Marxist theory. Marx also discusses the division of labour. The fact that production relations become more and more interdependent was also discussed by Marx - and he came to the conclusion that one of the internal contradictions of capitalism that will make the system unworkable is that the increasing interdependence in the sphere of production is incompatible with private ownership of property (the social relations underlying capitalism).

Democratic states, on their part, are dependant on legitimatization from the people; they must enforce policy that is acceptable to so many people that they don't loose their legitimacy and get overthrown by a revolution. In other words, there must exist norms or a collective conscience about what is the right course of action. So, by deduction, we can conclude that the division of labour (that I will now assume is utilized and fostered by a competitive market economy) will lead to the emergence of a 'collective conscience', which, in turn, is an essential part of a democratic society.

Hmm, I don't want to open this thread to sabotage so I will speak in riddles on this issue: democracy no longer exists in the so-called 'democratic' countries. All those who are willing to look at the matter honestly can see that:
* firstly, the so-called 'democratic' countries are dominated by two major political parties which have no real policy differences (in the US, the Democrats and Republicans do not differ on any substantial issues; in the UK, 'New" Labour is virtually indistinguishable from the Tories; in Australia the Labor Party and the Liberal Party have identical agendas);
* secondly, it is common knowledge that at least one major election was rigged - 'stolen' is the word commonly used.
I do not believe that politicians worry about legitimacy any more; they feel (and seem to be) immune from punishment, whatever they do.

 

[alexandra]

I agree with you ! I think that the free market works very well for consumer products and things with a short time scale. I think it works badly for large scale ambitious projects with long timescales and where expertise knowledge is more important than consumer opinions, like in building spaceships. That's why American personal computers are very good and former Russian photographic cameras were lousy and heavy, and why French trains are better than UK trains (very simplified vision :-).

It's good that we agree about some things, vanesch. Now I didn't know about the French and UK trains - uh-oh, I sense another spate of patriotic posts coming up defending UK trains (you're evil , vanesch, opening such a can of worms!)

 

[alexandra]

Well, I say: No, no, no . . .

I was just being playful, Les - it exhausts me to be so serious all the time, and I have a very strange sense of humour...

...people superficially observed APPEAR largely products of their environment, but contemplated in DEPTH are most substantially the product of their nature as consciousness.

Where is your irrefutable evidence of this, Les (I'm now being serious; no longer playful). The experts in this field have not decided that 'nature' wins. And, seriously, what does 'their nature as consciousness' mean? I really don't understand what you mean by that phrase.

Because some people mostly look at behavior and physiology, they think that constitutes most of what a human being is. A human system based on superficial understanding of a human being isn't going to work long or ever well. IMO, Marx was an observer of behavior . . . his system reflects his broad but shallow understanding of human nature.

That is your opinion, and you are entitled to it. My opinion is the opposite - in my opinion, Marx developed the analytical tools that, if used correctly, can provide the most profound understanding of capitalism. This was his life's work - an understanding of the capitalist system - it was never his intention to try to understand 'human nature'. He was not a psychologist, and did not claim to be. He was a social scientist who specialised in researching, understanding and explaining the political economy of capitalism (the 'big picture' view - not at the level of individuals).

 

[Art]

It's good that we agree about some things, vanesch. Now I didn't know about the French and UK trains - uh-oh, I sense another spate of patriotic posts coming up defending UK trains (you're evil , vanesch, opening such a can of worms!)

I doubt you will find any defenders of the British rail system least of all in Britain.

 

[vanesch]

I totally disagree with the view that “a majority opinion is seldom the best for the majority” – this is an ideological difference we have, and we can’t settle it. You won’t convince me to believe this, and I won’t convince you to believe otherwise. I deeply believe in the ability of ordinary people to know what is best for them – especially if they are given the benefit of having an informed opinion and are not subjected to the propaganda they are currently subjected to in what pass as ‘news reports’.

I have been stamped 'elitist' here, and I have to say that I fully agree with being stamped so. So I'm also of the opinion that it is a bad idea to ask "the people" about their "opinion" on highly technical and complicated subjects. I'm indirectly involved in education in the secondary system where I see a statistically correct subsample of "the people", and no, I don't want them, on average, to decide even on how to write my name ! As much as there are intelligent and bright adolescents, as much as there are true dumba** idiots that don't know how to make a logical reasoning containing more than 4 steps. That won't stop them of being good plumber aids or truck drivers, but I don't want them to decide about how our society should fit together. I don't mind them choosing WHO they want as their representative (after all, the main goal of democracy is to give the people the artificial feeling that they are in charge, which calms them down). I don't want them, however, to decide WHAT to do ! Because, even if they vote for a dumb representative, the dumb representative still has to make the decisions him/herself and take responsability for it. The crowd can make totally stupid decisions WITHOUT taking responsability for it.

I have seen public debates on the EU constitution here and it was terrifying. The one that impressed me most was on the first TV show where poor Chirac tried to defend the EU constitution to a "representative sample of 18-25 year olds". One of those representatives wanted to know if the EU constitution imposed member states to proceed to selective litter collection. If it wasn't the case, he'd vote "no", because he thought that having selective litter collection was important...

 

[Art]

I have been stamped 'elitist' here, and I have to say that I fully agree with being stamped so. So I'm also of the opinion that it is a bad idea to ask "the people" about their "opinion" on highly technical and complicated subjects. I'm indirectly involved in education in the secondary system where I see a statistically correct subsample of "the people", and no, I don't want them, on average, to decide even on how to write my name ! As much as there are intelligent and bright adolescents, as much as there are true dumba** idiots that don't know how to make a logical reasoning containing more than 4 steps. That won't stop them of being good plumber aids or truck drivers, but I don't want them to decide about how our society should fit together. I don't mind them choosing WHO they want as their representative (after all, the main goal of democracy is to give the people the artificial feeling that they are in charge, which calms them down). I don't want them, however, to decide WHAT to do ! Because, even if they vote for a dumb representative, the dumb representative still has to make the decisions him/herself and take responsability for it. The crowd can make totally stupid decisions WITHOUT taking responsability for it.

I have seen public debates on the EU constitution here and it was terrifying. The one that impressed me most was on the first TV show where poor Chirac tried to defend the EU constitution to a "representative sample of 18-25 year olds". One of those representatives wanted to know if the EU constitution imposed member states to proceed to selective litter collection. If it wasn't the case, he'd vote "no", because he thought that having selective litter collection was important...

Doesn't it follow from this line of reasoning that the general populace should definitely not be allowed to decide WHO as there are far more numerous and complex policy differences between candidates in a general election than in a single issue vote such as the EU constitution and so therefore a far greater degree of knowledge and analysis is required to determine the best candidate to make the best decisions regarding WHAT. It would therefore seem a natural consequence of your line of reasoning to insist that people should have to demonstrate their knowledge and analytical skills before being allowed to exercise a vote but then this would be open to abuse as parties gave intensive courses to people sympathetic to their cause.
Ultimately there is no ideal political structure but democracy including it's referenda is probably the best of a bad bunch of worse alternatives.

 

[vanesch]

It would therefore seem a natural consequence of your line of reasoning to insist that people should have to demonstrate their knowledge and analytical skills before being allowed to exercise a vote but then this would be open to abuse as parties gave intensive courses to people sympathetic to their cause.

I think it is the only correct way of holding referenda: ask a few technical questions about the subject of which there is an objective answer. I wouldn't mind parties giving intensive courses in which technically correct information is drilled into the heads of people initially sympathetic to their causes. If they are technically well-informed, they might make up their own mind!
For instance, one could compile a list of, say, 300 multiple choice questions concerning the subject, with clear technical answers, and randomly draw 10 of them for each voter (with electronic voting). You could then weight the vote with the fraction of correct answers to the questions.

In all OTHER decision processes, some of this procedure is followed. If you're ill, you go to the doctor's, don't you ? You don't ask in the local pub to vote for what treatment you should take. Why ? Because, in the past, the guy with the white coat DID have to answer technical questions before they gave him a certificate making him a doctor. When you have a legal problem, you go to see a lawyer for the same reasons.

But of course that is "elitist"...

Ultimately there is no ideal political structure but democracy including it's referenda is probably the best of a bad bunch of worse alternatives.

That's Churchill, wasn't it ? I think *representative* democracy isn't that bad. I think it is less of a problem of having a few idiots up there, taking responsability for their acts, publicly exposed, than an anonymous crowd who can decide in all impunity.

 

[vanesch]

Doesn't it follow from this line of reasoning that the general populace should definitely not be allowed to decide WHO as there are far more numerous and complex policy differences between candidates in a general election than in a single issue vote

The problem democratic representation solves is not that you have the most competent up there, but that you somehow have the feeling to be represented. It is this feeling which is unalienable if you want to have some legitimity for a government - it is the ultimate excuse for exercising power: hey, you CHOSE me! Before, there was another such ultimate excuse: hey, GOD chose me ! I'm King by divine right. But that doesn't work anymore.
This, plus the fact that when you have such a terrible idiot up there that it becomes clear for a majority of people that he's messing up, and that he gets voted out, are the two main factors which justify the democratic process. I can't really think of any other advantage. But it's important enough.

The downside is indeed, that you don't have the most competent up there. But I'd think that in a representative democracy, with an underlying technocratic bureaucracy, that problem can be alleviated. So just don't give too much power to the elected, and let the professionals under them do the real work. They can then take all their time to try to inform correctly the elected, which should then take more or less the not too bad decisions. Hey, you might even have some bright people in there, you never know !

 

[Art]

For instance, one could compile a list of, say, 300 multiple choice questions concerning the subject, with clear technical answers, and randomly draw 10 of them for each voter (with electronic voting). You could then weight the vote with the fraction of correct answers to the questions.

The problem remains nearly all issues have both moral and ideological dimensions and so it is not a matter of selecting a panel to find the single correct solution as there isn't one. A person of small knowledge may possesses higher morals or a (subjectively) better ideology than the person who knows all of the facts. One example which springs to mind where this would be relevant would be on a vote on capital punishment. A person may not know any of the facts relating to how successful the death penalty is on crime reduction or saving taxpayers money etc but would still feel vehemently that it is morally wrong. The same applies to the EU constitution; many people are proud of their national heritage and do not want to see it subsumed into a greater body irrelevant of whether or not they know the details of the treaty. A few years ago Ireland was heavily censored by the EU for it's national budget which Irish people saw as an infringement of their sovereignty which is why they then voted no to the Nice treaty a few months later. BTW Ireland's budget turned out to be correct which is why their economy continued to grow whilst most of europes went into recession.

 

[Les Sleeth]

The experts in this field have not decided that 'nature' wins. And, seriously, what does 'their nature as consciousness' mean? I really don't understand what you mean by that phrase

Well, they certainly haven’t concluded we are mostly conditioning either. If anything, the current materialist theory is that we are genetics and brain hard wiring (which is nature).

I think it’s strange that you don’t understand your consciousness has a nature. Do you have the opportunity to associate with children? They are born with the potential to laugh, play, feel, think, desire, be happy . . . we are not born blank, without any potentials; and we aren’t born without limitations either since we cannot become just anything. Further, there are ways a child needs to be carefully developed if it is going to be mentally healthy, and there are many things one can do to really mess up a child. All this clearly indicates we have a nature as consciousness. And that leads to what is wrong with your next point.

. . . in my opinion, Marx developed the analytical tools that, if used correctly, can provide the most profound understanding of capitalism. This was his life's work - an understanding of the capitalist system - it was never his intention to try to understand 'human nature'. He was not a psychologist, and did not claim to be. He was a social scientist who specialised in researching, understanding and explaining the political economy of capitalism (the 'big picture' view - not at the level of individuals).

I'm glad you acknowledged that. The fact that he jumped to social thinking without understanding human psychological needs is what's wrong with his theory. Who exactly do you think is going to work through his system? Do you design a system for horses that isn't based on horse ways? Our relatively recent understanding that human systems have to be grounded in basic needs of consciousness has been one of the major practical breakthroughs. Why do you think freedom was so motivating to the early Americans?

I don’t think we are going to agree on much Alexandra because you seem to be a “believer,” while I am skeptical of grand, unproven philosophies. A lot of things can be argued and apparently made sense of intellectually. But the true crucible for any idea is in its application. I see life as an experiential opportunity, like a big laboratory. I don’t listen much to believers unless they are doers first; so for me, if someone believes something is true, it is imperative they demonstrate it.

I don’t know if you are familiar with the philosophers Charles Peirce and William James, and their one truly original American philosophy: pragmatism. I have my own version of it which I sum up simply as “what works.” In this world doers are those who get things done. They create, they build, they discover . . . and the economic system which has supported all that more than any system in the history of humankind has been a free market system. Just in terms of what “works,” a free market system has at least something built into it that works.

Now, I agree with most of the criticisms of capitalistic economies (but really I mean free market system, so from now on I’ll call it FMS). But I could see a way to do a type of FMS which wasn’t driven by greed or lust for power, etc. Isn’t it the inner condition of the people working within the system that make a FMS what it is? If you take the same greedy, selfish, power-hungry attitudes working in a FMS, and put them to work in a communist system, do you think it’s going to fare much better?

I’ve been trying to suggest to you what “works” about a FMS, in spite of all its evils, is that individual freedom of effort is a top priority. Those in power (in any system) may try to suppress competition, but you can see just how much new players are getting into the FMS anyway, so no one is stopping new ideas yet. That “new idea” success opportunity is really important because it allows the self-actualizers to rise to the top. Maslow estimated only 1% of the population ever self actualize, so we really need that 1% to have a way to be more influential. In this sense I agree with Vanesch’s elitism about letting the masses be so influential they stifle humanity’s brightest. Sometimes I think there are those who just want to live a mediocre life, and so they do what they can to suppress excellence to keep from being shown up.

Getting back to the importance of “individual freedom of effort,” that’s the heart of a free market system. It’s like, “So you have a good idea? Well get out there and prove it works. Talk is cheap; do it and then you get credibility.” If you’ve read any of Carl Jung’s ideas you know about his emphasis on individuation. When I first read that it resonated fully with me.

Now, at pushing 60, I am more convinced than ever that individual development, expression, realization, achievement, and personal enjoyment make the human spirit blossom like nothing else. And if individuation makes us bloom, then systems which encourage that are going to do best. A lot of what goes on in capitalism is wrong, but the one thing it does right – the emphasis on individual striving – is so powerful it still makes capitalism “work” better than anything else we’ve seen.

Now let’s look at communism. I don’t buy all the complaints about not having had it demonstrated in the ideal, no system ever does. Where are the self actualizers stepping forward to make it happen? Where are all the dedicated researchers performing studies that demonstrate communistic principles really will work? WHERE ARE THE DOERS?

Why does most of the world yawn when anyone suggests communism? It’s boring, that’s why. It doesn’t excite our individuality, and that is exactly why whatever little bit of "real" communism that’s managed to arise in the state systems of China, Russia, et al has been bland. The basic understanding of what motivates a human being is wrong. And if you read Marx carefully, his analysis of what’s best for the masses clearly misses the importance of individual freedom of effort in terms of it being built into his system. It’s similar to the mistake welfare proponents have made by giving away help without requiring individual development on the part of recipients.

It would be great to have a FMS where we invested in what was good for humanity, and where we shared the proceeds sufficiently to make sure everyone had what they needed to live, be healthy, get educated (I’d love it) . . . But no system is going to make that happen. People have to learn one person at a time, and when enough of us are experiencing beneficent attitudes, then our systems, whatever we choose, will reflect that.

 

[vanesch]

The problem remains nearly all issues have both moral and ideological dimensions and so it is not a matter of selecting a panel to find the single correct solution as there isn't one. A person of small knowledge may possesses higher morals or a (subjectively) better ideology than the person who knows all of the facts.

Yes, but you could reasonably assume that in the worst case, the fact of possessing higher moral standards is statistically independent of knowing facts. You will have a hard time convincing me of a general ANTI-correlation. So as long as they are statistically independent or positively correlated (knowing facts and having moral standards about it), the proposed method doesn't make the results worse. Now if you are going to insist that the more you know about a subject, the less you have high moral standards about it, you are right of course. But if this proves to be a general criterium, then we can just INVERSE the weighting: the less you know about the subject, the more your vote counts...

One example which springs to mind where this would be relevant would be on a vote on capital punishment. A person may not know any of the facts relating to how successful the death penalty is on crime reduction or saving taxpayers money etc but would still feel vehemently that it is morally wrong.

Ok, but don't you think that KNOWING those facts can help you make your decision ? For instance I also think that the death penalty is morally somehow wrong. Nevertheless, if it is shown that it decreases the rate of child murders by, say 80%, I might be inclined to change my mind on it.

The same applies to the EU constitution; many people are proud of their national heritage and do not want to see it subsumed into a greater body irrelevant of whether or not they know the details of the treaty.

Don't you think that knowing exactly in what way that that is the case may be helpful ? For instance, you might wrongly think that certain aspects of your national heritage might be dissolved, while they are not, or vice versa.
I think that in general, knowing what you're deciding about always has a positive effect on the decision you take, one way or another.

However, I can see a bias introduced by what I propose: people can be so vehemently against what is proposed, that they don't even have to consider it. So the voting system diminishes their contribution, which would probably not change sides if they DID inform themselves.
But I'd say that if they want to make their point, then they just have to make an effort to look at what they despise so much, in order to do well on the test, and have their vote have a weight.

 

[Art]

Yes, but you could reasonably assume that in the worst case, the fact of possessing higher moral standards is statistically independent of knowing facts. You will have a hard time convincing me of a general ANTI-correlation. So as long as they are statistically independent or positively correlated (knowing facts and having moral standards about it), the proposed method doesn't make the results worse. Now if you are going to insist that the more you know about a subject, the less you have high moral standards about it, you are right of course. But if this proves to be a general criterium, then we can just INVERSE the weighting: the less you know about the subject, the more your vote counts...

By definition people who do not have the facts make their decisions intuitively relying on how they 'feel' about something rather than what they 'know' about it and so yes I think uninformed people would make judgements based more on their morals than well-informed ones who suppress their moral judgement by virtue of the 'facts' they have gleaned. This is afterall how many of the world's leaders, for example, have throughout history, justified immoral acts. As for weighting, that just invalidates the vote as you can get any result you like simply by adjusting the weighting factors.

Ok, but don't you think that KNOWING those facts can help you make your decision ? For instance I also think that the death penalty is morally somehow wrong. Nevertheless, if it is shown that it decreases the rate of child murders by, say 80%, I might be inclined to change my mind on it.

Don't you think that knowing exactly in what way that that is the case may be helpful ? For instance, you might wrongly think that certain aspects of your national heritage might be dissolved, while they are not, or vice versa.
I think that in general, knowing what you're deciding about always has a positive effect on the decision you take, one way or another.

I'm not saying one should avoid knowledge I simply question whether it should be a prerequisite to having one's opinion counted for the reasons I stated above.

However, I can see a bias introduced by what I propose: people can be so vehemently against what is proposed, that they don't even have to consider it. So the voting system diminishes their contribution, which would probably not change sides if they DID inform themselves.
But I'd say that if they want to make their point, then they just have to make an effort to look at what they despise so much, in order to do well on the test, and have their vote have a weight.

After WW2 there was a big push towards a technocrat society. I'm not familiar with the details but I saw footage of some of it's proponents (all dressed in a rather drab grey uniformlike apparel). Like you they believed in decisions being made by an informed elite but it died a death. I'll have to root around a bit to try and find out why.

 

[vanesch]

By definition people who do not have the facts make their decisions intuitively relying on how they 'feel' about something rather than what they 'know' about it and so yes I think uninformed people would make judgements based more on their morals than well-informed ones who suppress their moral judgement by virtue of the 'facts' they have gleaned.

Ah, like in the Hitchhiker's guide to the galaxy: the highest moral authority in the universe was a totally ignorant man, living in a cabin on a desert coast or something, being completely amnesic. Officials regularly came to ask him to take decisions, which he did, and then forgot about having done so

EDIT: how is this called ? Ignorocracy ? Amnesocracy ?

 

[vanesch]

After WW2 there was a big push towards a technocrat society. I'm not familiar with the details but I saw footage of some of it's proponents (all dressed in a rather drab grey uniformlike apparel). Like you they believed in decisions being made by an informed elite but it died a death.

Well, as I already said before, I think the functioning of the EU is not very far from this.

 

[Art]

Ah, like in the Hitchhiker's guide to the galaxy: the highest moral authority in the universe was a totally ignorant man, living in a cabin on a desert coast or something, being completely amnesic. Officials regularly came to ask him to take decisions, which he did, and then forgot about having done so

It's so difficult these days in a world of 6.5 billion people to have a truly original idea. Wish I'd been born back in the time of James Watt and the like, when all the low hanging fruit was still waiting to be plucked. But I bet someone has already said that

 

[vanesch]

Wish I'd been born back in the time of James Watt and the like, when all the low hanging fruit was still waiting to be plucked.

Look upon to it on the bright side: you'd be dead by now

 

[alexandra]

I'm indirectly involved in education in the secondary system where I see a statistically correct subsample of "the people", and no, I don't want them, on average, to decide even on how to write my name !

LOL - yes, students can get very creative when spelling names; it's annoying, I agree.

As much as there are intelligent and bright adolescents, as much as there are true dumba** idiots that don't know how to make a logical reasoning containing more than 4 steps.

But whose fault is that? Surely a society that valued education and the development of critical thinking skills would create a different kind of adolescent/person? If kids' brains weren't filled with the rubbish they show on TV all the time, or with the stupid electronic/computer war games that are so popular (because of capitalist advertising!), don't you think they would read more and develop their minds? I believe so - I believe people can be educated. Looking at myself - I was not born with the ability to reason; this is something that I learned over many years. Surely you have had a similar experience regarding your own development? If we could learn to think logically, why can't other people?

I don't want them, however, to decide WHAT to do ! Because, even if they vote for a dumb representative, the dumb representative still has to make the decisions him/herself and take responsability for it. The crowd can make totally stupid decisions WITHOUT taking responsability for it.

At the moment, we have leaders making decisions that affect our lives adversely. If people made bad decisions, they would quickly have to learn to make better ones - it would be in their interest to learn quickly. As things stand, people have no say over the important decisions that are made regarding wars and the environment, and leaders are immune to punishment - they can make any decision they like and are not held accountable in the most powerful countries on earth.

I have seen public debates on the EU constitution here and it was terrifying. The one that impressed me most was on the first TV show where poor Chirac tried to defend the EU constitution to a "representative sample of 18-25 year olds". One of those representatives wanted to know if the EU constitution imposed member states to proceed to selective litter collection. If it wasn't the case, he'd vote "no", because he thought that having selective litter collection was important...

I can imagine, vanesch It is not surprising, given the sort of society we are living in where people have not been encouraged to develop basic thinking skills. But people can learn... In any case, we all go through adolescence; it takes everyone time to learn how to evaluate arguments on the basis of evidence. I don't think it's fair to judge humanity on the undeveloped abilities of young people. [/QUOTE]

 

[alexandra]

I think it is the only correct way of holding referenda: ask a few technical questions about the subject of which there is an objective answer. I wouldn't mind parties giving intensive courses in which technically correct information is drilled into the heads of people initially sympathetic to their causes. If they are technically well-informed, they might make up their own mind!
For instance, one could compile a list of, say, 300 multiple choice questions concerning the subject, with clear technical answers, and randomly draw 10 of them for each voter (with electronic voting). You could then weight the vote with the fraction of correct answers to the questions.

This is an intriguing idea, vanesch - and a good one, I think. It annoys me just as much as it does you that people don't generally make the effort to stay informed about important issues. On the other hand, I do believe that this is the result of the kind of society we live in: it is not in the interests of those in power for ordinary people to do too much thinking! (See, if you're an 'elitist', I'm a cynic!).

In all OTHER decision processes, some of this procedure is followed. If you're ill, you go to the doctor's, don't you ? You don't ask in the local pub to vote for what treatment you should take. Why ? Because, in the past, the guy with the white coat DID have to answer technical questions before they gave him a certificate making him a doctor. When you have a legal problem, you go to see a lawyer for the same reasons.

But of course that is "elitist"...

Well, this is a good, logical argument (it's quite funny to think of taking a vote in the local pub about what treatment one should take for an illness ). Let's say I understand your 'elitism' given the current state of affairs - but I firmly believe that people can be different to how they are now: one just needs to change the kind of society we are living in, to have a generally more 'cultured' society. Again, I should point out that a capitalist society could never be cultured - real knowledge and understanding is not valued; only the sort of knowledge that makes money (witness the eradication of 'pure maths' courses and their replacement by 'applied maths' courses in universities - not to mention the plague of business courses that have infiltrated university campuses now). Well, these are my views in any case - I imagine most people will disagree with me. That's ok - I'm not trying to change your minds; I'm just putting across a different point of view because I find such discussions interesting.

That's Churchill, wasn't it ? I think *representative* democracy isn't that bad. I think it is less of a problem of having a few idiots up there, taking responsability for their acts, publicly exposed, than an anonymous crowd who can decide in all impunity.

But those few (very powerful) 'idiots' (I don't think they're idiots - I think they know *exactly* what they're doing and they're just immoral because they value money over people/the environment/everything) do not face any ill consequences whatsover; they get away with murder (literally).

 

[vanesch]

Again, I should point out that a capitalist society could never be cultured - real knowledge and understanding is not valued; only the sort of knowledge that makes money (witness the eradication of 'pure maths' courses and their replacement by 'applied maths' courses in universities - not to mention the plague of business courses that have infiltrated university campuses now).

That's why at least part of the educational system should remain a matter of the state. However, I think it is a mistake to think that fundamental matters are not taught anymore because of "capitalism". I think it has more to do with theoretical "science of education" bulls**t, especially in the secondary system. You have to know that in France, there is a lot of extreme left wing stuff incorporated in this "science of education" thing ; for instance, mathematics should not be "abstract" but "concrete and practical" because the first approach is elitist, and those that inherit a cultural environment (the socially favored) do better at it than those of less favorable social descent. So kids end up coloring cubes in math courses when they are 15 years old ! And contrary to what you think, rich parents pay for private lessons for their kids where hard, abstract maths is taught !
In the same way, my wife (who is a classicist) often has to undergo this "elitist" critique that teaching latin and greek is only for the "entertainment of the socially favored". It is a leftish thing, apparently, to want to have directly applicable matterial in the classroom, while the conservative right is more in favor for the teaching of fundamental and cultural material. At least over here. Unfortunately, everything which touches upon education is heavily left wing colored. I say unfortunately, not because I should have a right wing bias, but because I think they do totally stupid stuff in matters of education, based upon a silly notion of "egalitarism", which translates: kids should not have to have any advantage in school from being in a socially and culturally favored environment at home.

In the long run, I'm convinced - whether you want to use your education to make money or whatever you want to do with your life - that learning fundamental matters are much more efficient than learning "applied" stuff.
The funny thing is that that is rather close to the right wing vision - at least in France.

 

[arildno]

vanesch:
I'm shocked!
Are you saying that this educational nonsense with respect to maths has come to France as well??
I was sure it was only limited to Norway.

 

[vanesch]

But those few (very powerful) 'idiots' (I don't think they're idiots - I think they know *exactly* what they're doing and they're just immoral because they value money over people/the environment/everything) do not face any ill consequences whatsover; they get away with murder (literally).

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. 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.
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"

 

[vanesch]

vanesch:
I'm shocked!
Are you saying that this educational nonsense with respect to maths has come to France as well??
I was sure it was only limited to Norway.

Well, now I'm shocked: I thought that the Scandinavian countries were more or less spared from it !

In France, there is some hope that people are seeing that this nonsense is leading nowhere. I read more openly criticism about it, even in leftish journals. Of course, it will take a lot of time to reverse the tendency, but 5 years ago, such criticism stamped you as almost fascist reactionary.
But now that France ended very low on one or other international test concerning maths, and that more and more private extra courses are being given, some taboos are being broken

 

[Smasherman]

I'd like to say something about capitalism and personal rights.

It seems to me that economic systems go through phases. According to Marx socialism would evolve into communism (I know communism is a form of socialism). I imagine capitalism goes through phases as well. My theory is that capitalism starts out fairly oppressive (terrible wages, long hours, little schooling). Workers then unite to gain better wages, better education, etc. Good life combined with refined propaganda allows those in power to oppress the populace more and more, leading to the same situation as early capitalism.

So (if my logic is correct), capitalism allowed the "little guy" to become wealthy, gives people great expression, etc, during it's middle phase. The end phase of capitalism ought to lead to a worldwide revolt like Marx predicted (if my logic is correct, that is). My biggest concern is whether or not the world ecology will be able to sustain people when that revolt happens.

I have another question that's really not very relative: Will communism lead to another economic system?

 

[alexandra]

That's why at least part of the educational system should remain a matter of the state. However, I think it is a mistake to think that fundamental matters are not taught anymore because of "capitalism". I think it has more to do with theoretical "science of education" bulls**t, especially in the secondary system. You have to know that in France, there is a lot of extreme left wing stuff incorporated in this "science of education" thing ; for instance, mathematics should not be "abstract" but "concrete and practical" because the first approach is elitist, and those that inherit a cultural environment (the socially favored) do better at it than those of less favorable social descent. So kids end up coloring cubes in math courses when they are 15 years old !

Yes, I have heard of these critiques against 'left wing' reformist educational theories, and such practices should, of course, be criticised. From the research I have done on these issues, especially in the field of mathematics education, the situation is much more complex than the common understanding of it, however. This is a bit OT, but is perhaps important and interesting enough to discuss further...

The thing is, traditional methods of teaching mathematics (where students are taught standard algorithms "off by heart") have resulted in generations of adults who see maths as some sort of 'mysterious' thing that you either 'understand' or have no hope of understanding. Traditionally, mathematics was taught in ways that did not make sense. Mathematics educators, represented by bodies such as the US National Council of Teachers of Mathematics (NCTM, http://www.nctm.org/about/beliefs.htm) realized that teachers have to adopt a different approach so that students were understanding what they are learning rather than trying to remember how to solve specific problems using methods learned by rote that they did not understand, and so promoted the adoption of constructivist methods of teaching and learning (whereby learners are actively involved in constructing their own knowledge). They did not intend that their reform recommendations be simplistically interpreted to mean that students should not learn how to do the difficult maths at all, but this is how many non-educators (and, unfortunately, perhaps some incompetent mathematics educators) have interpreted it.

While there is an emphasis in the ‘reform movement’ on linking the teaching of mathematics concepts to relevant, practical and meaningful ‘real life’ examples, this is not meant to occur at the expense of an understanding of abstract concepts. The idea is to use the practical contexts to give meaning to the abstract concepts. Unfortunately, it takes very skilled mathematics educators to achieve this aim – it seems many mathematics teachers do not know their discipline well enough and don’t have a deep enough understanding themselves to teach in any way other than in the traditional way (the way they were taught themselves). So I do not believe that it is the ‘reform’ movement that is at fault here – the problem is how to implement those reforms properly. Vanesch, I would agree with you that the state of mathematics education in the secondary (and in the elementary) sector needs urgent attention – but I do not agree that we should return to the type of mathematics teaching that presents mathematics as something ‘alien’ and impossibly difficult to understand. In my own case, I learned very little real maths at school and had to teach myself from scratch as an adult. I firmly believe that this was because I was not taught in a way that facilitated understanding – I was shown how to do computations (the addition algorithm, the long division algorithm, etc), but the underlying concepts of such algorithms, and the processes involved, were never explored.

To get back OT, though – I do not believe that ‘leftist views’ have any impact at all on the sorts of courses that are offered at university level. What we are seeing operating there is economic rationalist principles, intricately related to capitalism. In Australia, the higher education sector has just undergone another radical ‘reform’ and universities have had to cut courses they are offering as a result. To attract funding from private business (because government funding is being slashed), universities are compelled to offer more applicable courses – and to save money, they are forced to stop offering pure maths courses. Education costs so much here (individual students get government loans that they have to pay back once they start working) that students have adopted a very ‘practical’ approach when selecting their courses: they are forced to choose to study courses that will ensure them a job, so they are forced to choose the more ‘applicable’ courses instead of the theoretical ones. So student numbers in pure maths courses drop, and they become unviable economically. That’s why I say that capitalism is to blame for what’s happening at the university level.

And contrary to what you think, rich parents pay for private lessons for their kids where hard, abstract maths is taught !

I believe this. I did not say rich parents don’t value education – I have explained in a lot more detail what I meant in the paragraph above.

In the same way, my wife (who is a classicist) often has to undergo this "elitist" critique that teaching latin and greek is only for the "entertainment of the socially favored". It is a leftish thing, apparently, to want to have directly applicable matterial in the classroom, while the conservative right is more in favor for the teaching of fundamental and cultural material. At least over here.

Yes, if the so-called ‘left’ adopts this position, they are being extremely superficial and ridiculously short-sighted. There are different ‘qualities’ of ‘left-wing’: some so-called ‘left wing’ people are not really, IMO, worthy of the title – they are certainly no better than the completely uninformed if their understanding is so superficial.

Unfortunately, everything which touches upon education is heavily left wing colored. I say unfortunately, not because I should have a right wing bias, but because I think they do totally stupid stuff in matters of education, based upon a silly notion of "egalitarism", which translates: kids should not have to have any advantage in school from being in a socially and culturally favored environment at home.

I totally agree with you on this final statement. When I think of egalitarianism, I think of raising everyone to a higher level rather than lowering everyone to some mediocre common denominator.

In the long run, I'm convinced - whether you want to use your education to make money or whatever you want to do with your life - that learning fundamental matters are much more efficient than learning "applied" stuff.
The funny thing is that that is rather close to the right wing vision - at least in France.

I don’t know anything about France’s politics, but I totally agree with your first sentence. It’s just that if there are no pure maths courses available to study, how can one choose to study in this field? Economic rationalism has meant the eradication of such study options at many universities, and this is (in my opinion) a serious issue that won’t be addressed as long as the focus is on transforming institutions of education into businesses - in other words, when I analyse it I see the cause of the deterioration of higher education as being capitalism.

 

[alexandra]

I'd like to say something about capitalism and personal rights.

It seems to me that economic systems go through phases. According to Marx socialism would evolve into communism (I know communism is a form of socialism). I imagine capitalism goes through phases as well. My theory is that capitalism starts out fairly oppressive (terrible wages, long hours, little schooling). Workers then unite to gain better wages, better education, etc. Good life combined with refined propaganda allows those in power to oppress the populace more and more, leading to the same situation as early capitalism.

So (if my logic is correct), capitalism allowed the "little guy" to become wealthy, gives people great expression, etc, during it's middle phase. The end phase of capitalism ought to lead to a worldwide revolt like Marx predicted (if my logic is correct, that is). My biggest concern is whether or not the world ecology will be able to sustain people when that revolt happens.

Very clearly expressed, Smasherman - I agree with this analysis. And my biggest concern is the same as yours. I don't know what your specialist background is (perhaps you are a specialist about climate), but in any case many reputable climatologists appear to share our concern. Today I heard an interview with Stanford academic, Stephen Schneider. He discussed climate policy and had some rather scary things to say - More: http://stephenschneider.stanford.edu/Climate/Climate_Policy/CliPolFrameset.html . And more and more scientists have been becoming more forthright about their concerns recently. It seems they too are worried about how much time we have to sort things out.

I have another question that's really not very relative: Will communism lead to another economic system?

I imagine so - I think that's just too far in the future to make any predictions about and will depend on what happens - how things unfold. But I don't imagine human societies will ever stop evolving; that wouldn't make sense. Oh, unless we wipe ourselves out as a species by not getting out of the current mess...

 

[vanesch]

The thing is, traditional methods of teaching mathematics (where students are taught standard algorithms "off by heart") have resulted in generations of adults who see maths as some sort of 'mysterious' thing that you either 'understand' or have no hope of understanding. Traditionally, mathematics was taught in ways that did not make sense. Mathematics educators, represented by bodies such as the US National Council of Teachers of Mathematics (NCTM, http://www.nctm.org/about/beliefs.htm ) realized that teachers have to adopt a different approach so that students were understanding what they are learning rather than trying to remember how to solve specific problems using methods learned by rote that they did not understand, and so promoted the adoption of constructivist methods of teaching and learning (whereby learners are actively involved in constructing their own knowledge). They did not intend that their reform recommendations be simplistically interpreted to mean that students should not learn how to do the difficult maths at all, but this is how many non-educators (and, unfortunately, perhaps some incompetent mathematics educators) have interpreted it.

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.

While there is an emphasis in the ‘reform movement’ on linking the teaching of mathematics concepts to relevant, practical and meaningful ‘real life’ examples, this is not meant to occur at the expense of an understanding of abstract concepts. The idea is to use the practical contexts to give meaning to the abstract concepts.

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.

Unfortunately, it takes very skilled mathematics educators to achieve this aim – it seems many mathematics teachers do not know their discipline well enough and don’t have a deep enough understanding themselves to teach in any way other than in the traditional way (the way they were taught themselves). So I do not believe that it is the ‘reform’ movement that is at fault here – the problem is how to implement those reforms properly.

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).

Vanesch, I would agree with you that the state of mathematics education in the secondary (and in the elementary) sector needs urgent attention – but I do not agree that we should return to the type of mathematics teaching that presents mathematics as something ‘alien’ and impossibly difficult to understand. In my own case, I learned very little real maths at school and had to teach myself from scratch as an adult. I firmly believe that this was because I was not taught in a way that facilitated understanding – I was shown how to do computations (the addition algorithm, the long division algorithm, etc), but the underlying concepts of such algorithms, and the processes involved, were never explored.

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.
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.

To get back OT, though – I do not believe that ‘leftist views’ have any impact at all on the sorts of courses that are offered at university level. What we are seeing operating there is economic rationalist principles, intricately related to capitalism. In Australia, the higher education sector has just undergone another radical ‘reform’ and universities have had to cut courses they are offering as a result. To attract funding from private business (because government funding is being slashed), universities are compelled to offer more applicable courses – and to save money, they are forced to stop offering pure maths courses. Education costs so much here (individual students get government loans that they have to pay back once they start working) that students have adopted a very ‘practical’ approach when selecting their courses: they are forced to choose to study courses that will ensure them a job, so they are forced to choose the more ‘applicable’ courses instead of the theoretical ones.

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.

So student numbers in pure maths courses drop, and they become unviable economically. That’s why I say that capitalism is to blame for what’s happening at the university level.

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.

 

[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.