The future - A question of opinion

[loseyourname]

Studies have shown that over time U.S. foreign policy does not change much from administration to administration (i.e., regardless of party affiliation). Limitations on presidential terms could well contribute to this.

That still doesn't make the current administration responsible for the actions or policies of past administrations.

As already stated in this thread by various members, first the issue of removing a dictator was a smoke screen, and when used as such, a higher moral ground can't be claimed.

Does stating it make it so?

Likewise, inconsistencies of the Bush administration have been shown, but if you really want to, you could find more instances.

This has been addressed to some extent in the other thread where I posted this same argument.

This is not directed at anyone in particular--But no matter how well some may argue (with what they may believe is their intellectual superiority) references will still be expected, especially in academic/scientific environments. Otherwise one would be no different than those Democrat contrarians we've heard about.

The only virtue in logic is consistency. From that virtue alone springs forth all of the formal laws as to what constitutes a valid argument and what does not. That said, the errors made in these threads are mostly informal errors. They should be pointed out whenever found, for everyone's sake.

By the way, what possible references can I provide? For one thing, I'm not making the claiming that the current administration has been completely consistent in all of its actions and stated policies. I'm only making the claim that what has been posted in this thread does not demonstrate any inconsistency on their part. Furthermore, if I were to make the claim that the administration's actions and policies were all consistent, think of what it would take for me to substantiate that claim. I would have to list out literally every action it has ever taken and every policy statement it has ever made. It should be obvious that I cannot do that, which I why I'm not making that claim. I'm not in the business of making claims I can't back up.

 

[SOS2008]

That still doesn't make the current administration responsible for the actions or policies of past administrations.

My point has been that the U.S. does not have a foreign policy of removing dictators. Even if Saddam was removed because he was a bad dictator, the Bush administration does not claim a foreign policy of removing dictators. If there are any such claims, please show this.

Does stating it make it so?

This is good example of logical deduction and consistency you seem to favor. Anyone with half a brain and an ounce of knowledge knew there was no connection between 9-11 and Saddam (logic). Likewise, when reasoning and justification is constantly changed by a political leader/administration, it will affect the merit of anything else that is said/done (lack of consistency).

I'm not in the business of making claims I can't back up.

If I am in a college class and I require another student to back up a claim during debate, I would be expected to substantiate why I question their position as well. The burden of proof lies on both sides of debate.

 

[russ_watters]

If I am in a college class and I require another student to back up a claim during debate, I would be expected to substantiate why I question their position as well. The burden of proof lies on both sides of debate.

This ain't a debate class. In debate classes, issues are binary and the burden of proof is intended to be equal: ie, Issue x: good or bad. Though I'd like to keep it scientific since this is a science forum, it isn't necessarily scientific criteria either. Regardless, Burnsys and others have made a very direct claim and the counterclaim is simply that they haven't substantiated the claim (and it must be because as loseyourname pointed out, proving a negative requires an infinite amount of evidence and is therefore not possible). Does that make the burden of proof lopsided to view it that way? Yes. Is that right - sorry, but it is.

 

[SOS2008]

This ain't a debate class. In debate classes, issues are binary and the burden of proof is intended to be equal: ie, Issue x: good or bad. Though I'd like to keep it scientific since this is a science forum, it isn't necessarily scientific criteria either. Regardless, Burnsys and others have made a very direct claim and the counterclaim is simply that they haven't substantiated the claim (and it must be because as loseyourname pointed out, proving a negative requires an infinite amount of evidence and is therefore not possible). Does that make the burden of proof lopsided to view it that way? Yes. Is that right - sorry, but it is.

I didn't say this is a debate class. It is an academic forum, and for those who've studied in the social sciences, all classes have these requirements for participation. It would seem other members have taken note of this as well, and why for example, the thread on objectivity was posted.

No one member is an authority, and even when they are, such as alexandra about Marxist theory, they will still need to provide references. However, when members have supported claims with reliable sources, often it is just disregarded, and/or the responses are petty and demanding of more proof--rather than making a case in reply (with references). Over-coming an opponent with sheer exhaustion and in a purely argumentative way is not right. Sorry, but it's not.

 

[alexandra]

There are claims that we hear everyday that with the free trade, globalization, and the spread of liberal values, the borders between the nations are gradually disappearing and the concept of a nation will gradually vanish, that the world will eventually become a global village speaking one language.
What is your thought, is this true? Or are people becoming more and more conscious of their national identity?

Here's one perspective on this question: the term 'globalisation' is misleading, as it is too loosely defined to be of any use. When I am trying to understand the 'globalisation' phenomenon, I think of it in terms of the eradication of borders in certain areas, particularly in economics/trade.

It is a feature of capitalism that it must seek new markets, cheap resources, and cheap labour if capitalists are to increase their profits (or expand their capital). Colonialism can be seen as one result of the need for capital to expand. The current phase of capitalist development has demanded an eradication of barriers to the ability of capital to be shifted in an instant to those places where it can be invested most profitably - so where money is concerned, 'globalisation' has occurred and investment can be shifted with very little trouble out of countries where profits are eroded by workers' demands for a decent living wage, or areas where environmental laws add to the expenditure (and cut into the profit margins) of industry. Capital goes 'off-shore', to countries where impoverished workers are not unionised (and don't have a history of unionism) and therefore cannot secure decent wages. Capital is also invested in countries that have no environmental legislation so that multinational/transnational companies can circumvent requirements that they operate in a way that is socially responsible.

At the same time that the powerful have secured the free movement of capital to where profits can be increased, ethnic and religious conflicts are deliberately being encouraged to divide people along nationalistic/religious/ ethnic lines. The media and academics are complicit in this, spreading an ideology of division and dissent (Samuel Huntington's 'The Clash of Civilizations' is an excellent example of this).

The reason for this is obvious: it would not suit the economically powerful for ordinary people to unite on a global scale because if they did they would have the power to challenge the status quo. So, for example, if the working class organised internationally so that workers all over the world refused to work for less than a decent minimum wage, this would cut into the profits of the multinational coroporations, etc. Individual countries are also instituting repressive local legislation that is aimed at not only silencing dissent within each country but is also aimed at more tightly controlling the movement of ordinary people around the globe (wealthy people, of course, face no such obstacles: the world is their playground). So, on the pretext of the 'terrorist threat', in some countries (eg. the UK) ordinary people will now be required to carry identity cards and are subjected to hours of waiting in airport customs queues - this makes one think twice about going anywhere else. Then there's the whole issue of 'illegal migrants', and how (if you're poor) you are not welcome in certain countries (whereas if you're rich, 'come right in, buddy!'). So globalisation does not apply where the movement of ordinary people is concerned.

As for the future of the nation-state... Because of the globalisation of capital and the productive forces, nationalism is an anomaly - it contradicts what is happening to the forces of production. However, the economically and politically powerful are going to try their damndest to keep fanning the flames of 'nationalism' while they sit back and make their profits wherever - because the kinds of conflicts that nationalism result in pre-empts the only threat to these people's power: the collective power of ordinary people at a global level. Whether or not the powerful will be successful in 'containing' globalisation for their purposes is another question... I don't think that they will succeed in the long term.

 

[alexandra]

No one member is an authority, and even when they are, such as alexandra about Marxist theory, they will still need to provide references. However, when members have supported claims with reliable sources, often it is just disregarded, and/or the responses are petty and demanding of more proof--rather than making a case in reply (with references). Over-coming an opponent with sheer exhaustion and in a purely argumentative way is not right. Sorry, but it's not.

Hmm, I have read a lot of Marxist theory, but there is still so much to learn... Anyway, SOS, I just wanted to confirm your final point and give my personal experience regarding this: sometimes I feel like just 'giving up' the argument out of sheer exhaustion because it feels like no matter how much evidence I present it won't be accepted. But then I read what's being written and I just can't resist engaging 'battle' again...

 

[Jonny_trigonometry]

my 2 cents:

A huge war initiated by a group of organized individuals that manipulate the overall mood of populations of many different countries via constant and relentless persuasion over the course of decades would move humanity towards globalization. This global war may take a long time to set up, but it would have to be done in that manner in order to not be recognized by the public of any involved nation.

As an example: My old computer science teacher told us about when she took psychology class in college, her and her classmates conditioned the teacher to behave in a certain way without the teacher even realizing it. They all agreed to look as if what the teacher was saying was very interesting when the teacher walked in a particular spot in the room, and when the teacher is in the opposite side of the room, the class would act as if what the teacher was saying was very boring. At the end of the semester, the teacher was standing in the corner for the whole class period (completely oblivious to the fact that he was producing the desired behavior of the class).

All that must be done is a similar type of conditioning to those who operate major countries (USA being a main player). Small differences in thought can produce vary large differences in behavior... For example, what if the constitution stated that freedom was granted to every individual by the nation (rather than by God)? Then every citizen owes their freedom to the nation, and thus every citizen is a serf! One small change in political thought, and bam! Feudalism!

What if, after this global war, the nation that wins everybody's hearts says "We'll help you rebuild if you join us, and if you don't then we couldn't care less", but at the same token, the winning nation is so powerful by then that nobody can survive long on their own, so pretty much everyone agrees to join (as the invite offers a better living standard than trying to make in on their own). This is kind of like when the Roman Empire would take over a town and the people of the town would actually view it as a good thing, that they would be part of a strong nation. At this point, all the nation has to do is make a small change in their constitution, and bam, all of the world is living in despotism.

My only offering in this post is that globalization could be the worst thing that has ever occurred to humanity.

 

[alexandra]

What if, after this global war, the nation that wins everybody's hearts says "We'll help you rebuild if you join us, and if you don't then we couldn't care less", but at the same token, the winning nation is so powerful by then that nobody can survive long on their own, so pretty much everyone agrees to join (as the invite offers a better living standard than trying to make in on their own). This is kind of like when the Roman Empire would take over a town and the people of the town would actually view it as a good thing, that they would be part of a strong nation. At this point, all the nation has to do is make a small change in their constitution, and bam, all of the world is living in despotism.

An interesting hypothesis, Jonny - but look what happened to the Roman Empire ultimately Winning people's 'hearts' is very difficult to do when you kill innocent civilians, including children, and ruin the very fabric of the societies that have been attacked.

My only offering in this post is that globalization could be the worst thing that has ever occurred to humanity.

I think globalisation is both inevitable and can be progressive - depending on the details of how it works out. A true globalisation on every score, where the world literally becomes a 'global village' in every sense of the word, would be an incredibly advanced form of civilisation. Imagine if we didn't have to deal with national and economic rivalries and similar sectarian obstacles to doing something about saving the environment, for example. Frankly, I think this is humanity's only chance: we're either going to get the globalisation thing right or we won't survive as a species (and will take out a lot of other species as well in the process).

 

[russ_watters]

Hmm, I have read a lot of Marxist theory, but there is still so much to learn... Anyway, SOS, I just wanted to confirm your final point and give my personal experience regarding this: sometimes I feel like just 'giving up' the argument out of sheer exhaustion because it feels like no matter how much evidence I present it won't be accepted. But then I read what's being written and I just can't resist engaging 'battle' again...

After the mess you made with the poverty issue, I'm not sure how you can make such a claim. In fact, you have admitted your own position on the issue is changing - how are we supposed to accept arguments that are so poorly developed that they change during the course of the argument? Heck, you seem to think you are well versed on Marxism and its implications for capitalism - how can that be true if you have such a tenuous understanding of its most important premise? Your arguments remind me of a recent discussion I had with my boss about "Darwin's Black Box" and Intelligent Design. Its a well-written book that people just read and accept without thinking about it. If we're giving you so much trouble here, it implies to me that you need to apply some critical thinking to your reading. Don't just "read a lot of Marxism" - think about Marxism.

 

[Informal Logic]

Regardless, Burnsys and others have made a very direct claim and the counterclaim is simply that they haven't substantiated the claim (and it must be because as loseyourname pointed out, proving a negative requires an infinite amount of evidence and is therefore not possible).

Who is all for 'PF Patrol' and ground rules? If one wanted to quantify this matter (counting posts by certain members and measuring the content) we would find that there are those who do provide sources in reply to claims that are not substantiated, and/or make their own case in response, and do it all the time. So I disagree with this reasoning (or should we say, excuse?).

After the mess you made with the poverty issue, I'm not sure how you can make such a claim. In fact, you have admitted your own position on the issue is changing - how are we supposed to accept arguments that are so poorly developed that they change during the course of the argument? Heck, you seem to think you are well versed on Marxism and its implications for capitalism - how can that be true if you have such a tenuous understanding of its most important premise?

Since you are an economist and have studied political theories, I suppose you are an expert on poverty and Marxism and therefore are in a position to make this assessment?

Don't just "read a lot of Marxism" - think about Marxism.

Before you think about Marxism, read about it.

 

[hypatia]

people still conduct genocides over religion or ethnicity shows that we are by no means nearing globalization

Yes we are a longs ways off, by the time we realize we need a united world for the sake of the planet's survival{ours too} it just may be too late.

 

[alexandra]

After the mess you made with the poverty issue, I'm not sure how you can make such a claim.

Russ, it's called 'integrity' and 'intellectual honesty'. I made an honest error, and I was honest enough to admit it. That's what one does if one is arguing intelligently. I explained that in the heat of our arguments I did not stop to think enough and I answered some posts thoughtlessly and I agreed with definitions that were false. This does NOT imply your next claim...

In fact, you have admitted your own position on the issue is changing - how are we supposed to accept arguments that are so poorly developed that they change during the course of the argument?

No, absolutely not. I did NOT admit that my own position on the issue is changing. I admitted to having made a mistake. I am fair enough to accept that I have made mistakes - and I am confident enough to accept that I will not always be perfect, and that I will sometimes make mistakes. But this does not mean that I have admitted to any flaws in Marxism. All I admitted to was a flaw in my definition of ONE Marxist concept. It would have been stupid and dishonest of me not to admit to a mistake, and I don't work like that.

Heck, you seem to think you are well versed on Marxism and its implications for capitalism - how can that be true if you have such a tenuous understanding of its most important premise?

Poverty is NOT the Marxist perspective's most important premise. There are several important premises; poverty is one of the many key concepts.

Your arguments remind me of a recent discussion I had with my boss about "Darwin's Black Box" and Intelligent Design. Its a well-written book that people just read and accept without thinking about it. If we're giving you so much trouble here, it implies to me that you need to apply some critical thinking to your reading. Don't just "read a lot of Marxism" - think about Marxism.

I do, Russ - believe me, I think about Marxism all the time. I can't sleep for thinking about Marxism and the lessons it teaches me.

 

[Yonoz]

Yes we are a longs ways off, by the time we realize we need a united world for the sake of the planet's survival{ours too} it just may be too late.

What do you mean by a "united world"? Sounds a bit Orwellian to me...
Anyway, suppose there's a "sovereign" country abusing human rights - what should you, as a citizen of a democratic country, or your government, do about it?

 

[russ_watters]

Russ, it's called 'integrity' and 'intellectual honesty'. I made an honest error, and I was honest enough to admit it. That's what one does if one is arguing intelligently. I explained that in the heat of our arguments I did not stop to think enough and I answered some posts thoughtlessly and I agreed with definitions that were false.

And I really meant to commend you on that. Its admirable and quite unexpected - its extremely rare here.

However...

This does NOT imply your next claim...

No, absolutely not. I did NOT admit that my own position on the issue is changing. I admitted to having made a mistake. I am fair enough to accept that I have made mistakes - and I am confident enough to accept that I will not always be perfect, and that I will sometimes make mistakes. But this does not mean that I have admitted to any flaws in Marxism. All I admitted to was a flaw in my definition of ONE Marxist concept. It would have been stupid and dishonest of me not to admit to a mistake, and I don't work like that.

Well, that's semantic, but as I see it as you've taken step 1 on a 3 step process: You've realized that what you thought was true about poverty was not. The next step is tougher: the acceptance that that one failure invalidates the starting premise for Marxism and thus eliminates its reason for existing. Its such a huge blow though, that I fully understand that it could take you years to come to terms with it.

The 3rd step would be abbandoning most Marxist principles, but few liberals ever do that. However, I have a good article I'll start a new thread on about that...

Poverty is NOT the Marxist perspective's most important premise. There are several important premises; poverty is one of the many key concepts.

Perhapes I should have said "starting premise", but again, that's semantics. Marx wrote his theory because of his assumption/prediction that capitalism causes poverty. If capitalism causes prosperity, then there is no basis for a Marxist revolution. You can argue the philosophical superiority of Marxism all you want, but its pointless: you can't have a revolution unless people are angry with their current situation.

I do, Russ - believe me, I think about Marxism all the time. I can't sleep for thinking about Marxism and the lessons it teaches me.

I can't understand how you could think about it all the time and miss such a key flaw. But again, maybe I worded the statement badly: when you think about it, do you question it? That's what I really meant: only by actively searching for flaws and failing (that is, in essence, the scientific process) can you be sure you have something worth believing.

 

[alexandra]

And I really meant to commend you on that. Its admirable and quite unexpected - its extremely rare here.

Yes, this does seem to be rare (people admitting to mistakes - not just here, in general). That's not very good, though - how are we ever to refine our understanding of things if we don't admit to mistakes? Sigh.

However... Well, that's semantic, but as I see it as you've taken step 1 on a 3 step process: You've realized that what you thought was true about poverty was not. The next step is tougher: the acceptance that that one failure invalidates the starting premise for Marxism and thus eliminates its reason for existing. Its such a huge blow though, that I fully understand that it could take you years to come to terms with it.

The next step is to refine my understanding of poverty, not to accept that one error on my part invalidates my overall knowledge of marxism, and even less that it invalidates the marxist perspective itself. Marxism is a complex analytical perspective, and I need to keep working at it. It took Marx his entire lifetime to develop it, and the economic parts of his theory especially (the most important parts) are incredibly difficult to master an understanding of. (Just as an aside here: how long does one have to study General Relativity to understand it, and can one understand it imperfectly and have to work on refining one's understanding over time? I assume the analogy is informative). And Russ, please don't be sarcastic - as in 'Its such a huge blow though, that I fully understand that it could take you years to come to terms with it'. That is quite an insult, you know - marxism is not a 'religion' (the view you are trying to express here) and I am no idiot.

The 3rd step would be abbandoning most Marxist principles, but few liberals ever do that.

Actually, I would like to make a definitional correction here: there's a huge difference between liberals and socialists/marxists. I am not a liberal: liberals believe that capitalism can be 'reformed' and that it can be 'benevolent'; I am under no such illusions. Perhaps liberals are defined differently in the US? Anyway, by my definitions I am much less likely to change my understanding of the world than a liberal is. The liberal perspective can be quite confusing and often contradicts itself; the marxist perspective is much clearer and more definite.

Perhapes I should have said "starting premise", but again, that's semantics. Marx wrote his theory because of his assumption/prediction that capitalism causes poverty.

Marx hailed capitalism as a progressive change from feudalism; he saw its role as positive, and capitalism itself as a necessary transitional social formation. Marx did not assume/predict that capitalism causes poverty (that was the stupid error I made in our other argument about this), but rather that it exacerbates relative inequalities in wealth (it leads to vastly unequal distributions of wealth) and, with that, that it increases alienation and presents severe barriers to human development. He also saw capitalism as containing the seeds of its own destruction in that it contains inherent contradictions that will eventually play themselves out and weaken its economic foundation: the private ownership of the means of production. This is the more technical, economic part of his theory.

If capitalism causes prosperity, then there is no basis for a Marxist revolution. You can argue the philosophical superiority of Marxism all you want, but its pointless: you can't have a revolution unless people are angry with their current situation.

I agree with you. People will not do anything about their living conditions unless they are forced to. It's just that I believe that things will get so bad that people *will* be forced to stand up for their right to live as human beings, and to stand up for the future generations' rights to a habitable planet (hopefully this will happen on time - the greatest risk I see is that people will not act on their knowledge until it is too late). Unlike me, you believe that everyone's lives are getting better and that there aren't any really serious environmental problems and that we have infinite time to sort out whatever minor environmental problems there are. Stalemate.

I can't understand how you could think about it all the time and miss such a key flaw. But again, maybe I worded the statement badly: when you think about it, do you question it? That's what I really meant: only by actively searching for flaws and failing (that is, in essence, the scientific process) can you be sure you have something worth believing.

This is good advice, Russ (to question one's beliefs)- but can you see that you (and others involved in political discussions) are guilty of exactly what you are accusing me of here? Do you, honestly speaking, believe that your political thinking is scientifically based? Do you question the perspective from which you choose to analyse the world? Actually, Russ, I did question Marxism - for a long time, I tried to ignore it and what it shows me. You have no idea how uncomfortable it is being forced to see life and the world without blinkers - it makes my own personal life a lot more difficult and has had all sorts of personal and social implications that I really don't want to go into here. Believe me, I've tried to numb my brain in various ways (eg. watching mindless TV, going for days without reading news in an attempt to obliterate my awareness, etc). I guess I just can't do it: I can't skim the surface of life and pretend everything is fine and that I should just have a 'good time' and not worry about politics and the wider society. And there is no getting away from what marxism tells me; it's clear as day.

 

[Big Papa]

From Russia with Love.

Have you ever tried to have someone in Russia conduct work for you? Have you ever spent months sending e-mails back and forth because you want to pay taxes to their government, yet the people over there refuse to co-operate? You may ask why would you want to pay taxes to Russia? The answer is because we have no tax treaty wtih them. In fact everything you pay out to employees in Russia is a 100% tax write off for your I.R.S. Taxes. However, people in Russia do not like paying taxes. One reason is there is so much payperwork that is involved with politicans just to approve to whole process. So on one side, it seems simple. On the other side of the planet it is not perceived as simple, so there is no co-operation. Then there is the Russian culture. Back in the days of the Soviet Government, people were garenteed a job. This created a very lax people who gave a new dimention to the word procrastination. Having someone get paid in advance and doing very simple work in a months time is impossible. So in this reguard the globalization, at least for people in Russia is a hard thing. However, with their knowledge of php computer technology at great prices, which makes html look like carving letter into stone, there is great promise in having this labor globalized. I mean why pay an American $10,000 when you can pay a Russian $2,000?

On the issue of actual Gloabalization itself. It is far easier to organize sub-contractors in different countires than it is to do so locally. Locally, people get jealouse and commite acts of sabatotage, embezzlement, shoddy work, no work being done, worker slow down, corporate espionage and anything else relative. You can not organize you local masses ecomically. However you can outsource your work and take the same gamble. The only difference is it costs less money and if someone doesn't do their job, you can just contact a replacement in a different section of their country or a different one. That's why globalization for the small independent businesses owner who is struggling on a poor standard of living can at least inch his way towards success.