Talking to the right-winger in your life

quote:More and more I find it really difficult to explain things pertaining to politics to people who have been "educated" in fields like engineering, pharmacy, the sciences, etc.
As the socialist that I am, I am engaging in too many discussions with people of very limited educational backgrounds (economics, etc) – most, if not all, are conservatives.

So, I guess my question is: how can one explain concepts and simple history to people with such limited mind frames?

Cheers,
Mikhail

The answer...

Heh. Check out Ms C's response. You might like it!

I do, and it's a good point.

I've never seen anybody go from left to right or vice versa in a short time frame. Human beings are way too stubborn, and usually they had good reason to be where they are in the first place, so counterevidence will take a while to accumulate in a sufficient manner.

I've never found natural scientists to be rightwing...I'd say they fall more on the left than right side in my experience.

If you're going to indulge self-gratifying fantasies, could you please close the door? And clean up after yourself.

Not if they're about me.

Another possibility is that Mikhail's interlocutors have developed analytical skills, and that they keep finding flaws in his arguments.

Maybe he's asking 'How do I deal with people who keep calling me when I make shit up?'

[ 04 July 2008: Message edited by: Stephen Gordon ]

Economists wouldn't make that mistake. Nor would we dismiss computer scientists in a discussion of the merits of a particular algorithm.

Economists are often the worse. Ever take a University level economics course? Once they start in on the "free market" and the "invisible hand" my eyes glaze over and I know I am in the wrong class.

Apples, no offense but weren't you the one who posted the sciences on a scale, with sociologists being the lowest and mathematicians being the highest?

Anyways, most of the Business majors and computer science students were some of the most conservative groups of people I have ever met. I expect it is a product of their education OR they pick these fields because they are conservative.

quote:Originally posted by Stephen Gordon:
Another possibility is that Mikhail's interlocutors have developed analytical skills, and that they keep finding flaws in his arguments.

Maybe he's asking 'How do I deal with people who keep calling me when I make shit up?'

[ 04 July 2008: Message edited by: Stephen Gordon ]

I found most of my computer science colleagues to be poorly equipped for moral or political arguments. (In fact, I can recall discussing this with one of them. He agreed.) I don't say this because a lot of them were conservative. I recognize a good debater whatever his or her position. I think it's maybe due to a lack of general knowledge: not knowing the history of such discussions, perhaps, or the range of opinion, the counter-arguments, etc.

That's not to say I haven't heard a lot of very poor arguments on all sides.

Stephen Gordon,

Do you think Rand-O-Bots constitute a significant fraction of the economics population?

I wonder if there is still a difference between econ and business majors in terms of political views. Survey research from the 1970s demonstrated that econ majors were quite a bit more left than business majors, but this was when Keynesians were still pretty prominent on university faculties and before NAIRU, rational expectations, etc. were that prevalent in undergraduate courses. Although econ is a social science and not a "vocational" major I imagine far more go on to get MBA's than go into grad school in economics.

Friedman's "natural rate" isn't inherently a rightwing idea either (Marx and Kalecki certainly endorsed similar ideas)...but I think economists perceive themselves to be less "liberal" than they did a generation ago...but how about the rest of my point? My feeling is a lot of progressive-minded people who might have been attracted to economics in the past don't do so today, but I have no way to prove it.

But intellectual breadth, and the ability to see the forest for the trees, is.

quote:Originally posted by Stephen Gordon:
Your feeling may well be justified. But if leftists are content with learning enough to sound well-informed at cocktail parties (or on internet discussion boards) attended by non-economists, then that's a problem for leftists, not economists.

Economics is an important subject, and learning it properly requires investing heavily in specialised skills. Intellectual sloth is not a moral virtue.

There's some truth to that. For instance a lot of leftists are hostile to the idea of a "natural rate of unemployment, quite understandably I think. Doesn't mean they should just "give up" and say, ah, economics is just rightwing pseudo-science.

That being said, have you found there to be a difference between econ majors and business majors in terms of aspirations, political views, etc.?

quote:Originally posted by Coyote:
Today, in fields as "diverse" as literature and economics, experts create insider language that excludes those not inititated into the elite of a given field. Their study no longer contributes to public debate, in fact the public is advised very seriously to "stay out of it".

This obscures knowledge, debate, and I would argue democracy.

To the extent that is true, is it only a recent development? George Bernard Shaw once remarked that the professions are a conspiracy against the general public.

quote:Originally posted by Coyote:
And that is a good point. I try to remind myself constantly that there is nothing new under the sun.

A lot of very intelligent people have been working a lot of hours on a lot of questions for a very long time.

When Isaac Newton published the principia, other intellectuals were shocked that there was a development they could not understand.

The days of people being experts on all subjects are over, and that is because there is a lot that is new under the sun.

quote: Economists wouldn't make that mistake.
Oh, c'mon, Stephen. Most economists are ideologically slanted. If a theory doesn't fit their ideological beliefs, it is dismissed while those that do are trumpeted. You, yourself, will continue to advocate economic models and theories even when all the evidence suggests the opposite results (or worse the results just aren't tabulated).

Two easy and quick examples:

One, to prove that Friedman-ite economic theories are working, i.e. keeping inflation in check (inflation defined primarily as worker's wages, IMV), food and energy are removed from the US measurement of "Core Inflation". Yes, yes, they have many arguments and rationale to justify this, but it is skewed numbers nonetheless and supported by economists.

There are two messages one can derive from this: One is that the government and their economists don't give a shit about the impacts of inflation on citizens or, more likely, 2.2% inflation sounds much nicer to the economic ideologues than 4 or 5 per cent inflation.

A second example: In Wisconsin, the government did a common sense revolution and tightened welfare restrictions that impacted largely single mothers and their children. The economists and politicians who championed the draconian laws heralded the much reduced welfare rates for the state. Poverty advocates say the new regulations have cast many women and children into deeper poverty and, often, homelessness.

So who is right? Well, the politicians and their economists chose not to track people once they leave welfare. So the only statistic that matters is the one that would indicate welfare rolls are lower.

Sorry, Stephen, economics can, and is, twisted and turned to suit any ideological preconception no matter how bent.

Economists are not free of ideology and as Friedman and his many followers have proved, they have no moral qualms about perverting their academic knowledge in the service of their ideological faith.

[ 05 July 2008: Message edited by: Frustrated Mess ]

I certainly believe that Stephen contributes greatly to this board. He challenges the prevailing wisdom here, and has in fact changed my mind on a number of issues with his arguments. I appreciate him and his contribution here immensely.

That we disagree on some basic starting point issues bothers me not a whit. That he is snarky on occasion does not bother me either; he is subject to much snark himself. That doesn't mean I won't strenuously respond when I think he is far off the mark, and I hope he does the same with me.

If I have ever given another impression, I hope this corrects that record.

quote: Other than Prof. Gordon, are there any other professional economists who post here with any regularity?
How would we know? Is MikeS an economist?

quote:Originally posted by Lard Tunderin' Jeezus:
Self-awareness is a moral virtue. Hypocrisy isn't.

If you feel entitled to sit back and pass judgment on the economic ignorance of your inferiors here, you are obliged to debate the issues and explain what error you perceive in their approach.

But you don't; perhaps you can't, but most likely it's just 'intellectual sloth'.

As such, you continuously infuriate, and are seldom (and less and less often) seen to make any useful contribution here. This thread is a perfect example of your dismissive and alienating behaviour.

quote:I hope he does, too. Unfortunately, my point was that Stephen seems to have given up on making any effort whatsoever.

Is it at all possible for you to participate in one of these threads without passing judgment on me?

quote:Originally posted by Stephen Gordon:
... learning enough to sound well-informed at cocktail parties ...

That's a function of how late you arrive.

quote: which means never EVER addressing his posts, either directly or talking about him in the third person
Whoa! Like ever? Do you guys keep a moderator database? Am I in there?

Unfortunately I'm becoming a geezer. Cricks and pains and ornery at them younguns squealing their tires all day.

My favourite economist to read is Paul Krugman at the NYT. He is great at explaining concepts, backing up his point of view, and seems to be fair and intellectually honest.

If SG is 'above us' for lack of a better word, in the field of economics, then he should take the opportunity to educate us and engage in honest debate. I for one would appreciate the opportunity to learn more on the topic.

I have a degree in Mathematics, and have worked in computer sciences for many years. My social circle includes several individual with science degrees who, like me, consider themselves left of center.

If I'm engaged in a debate where mathematical knowledge comes into play, I always try to take the time to explain and simplify concepts. It's usually possible to explain even difficult concepts to most people and web forums provide a good medium for Q&A.

quote:Okay, this is at the point now where I'm going to tell you, LTJ, to pretend that Stephen Gordon doesn't exist - which means never EVER addressing his posts, either directly or talking about him in the third person - because you seem to find it impossible to address him or talk about him without attacking him.

...so being smug, patronizing and condescending okay, getting pissed off at smug patronizing and condescending people not okay.

personally I find apologists for global capitalism and corporate imperialism rather tedious so I tend to avoid them myself. I really don't need to here more opinions of this type, I am unable to turn on a radio,t.v. open a newspaper or even walk out the door without being assaulted by a barrage of incessant screams of the dominant ideology...THERE IS NO ALTERNATIVE THERE IS NO ALTERNATIVE. It is sometimes pleasant to believe there might be some sort of sanctuary perhaps that is naive.

engaging in conversation with one of the high priests is like talking to an evangelical christian a pointless and frustrating waste of time.

Inclusiveness might be a nice idea but the reality is including some usually means excluding others

quote:Originally posted by Michelle:
So that means that I'd like to see Stephen avoid LTJ too, which means not responding to his posts nor referring to him in the third person.

Fair enough.

Certainly I do. And I think if you set the parameters of a discussion i.e., a thread entitled "Alternatives to Capitalism" or somesuch I bet that it would be respected.

That's kind of how it works, I suppose. We try to tolerate each other and our divisions and try to make something work between us. If this were an explicitly anti-capitalist board by mission I would likely not contribute; been to those sites, man, they make babble look like a tea party.

Capitalism isn't a philosophy.

Who's talking about banning anything? I'm sure N.R.K. wouldn't lose any sleep if you decided to buy some stocks.

Personally, I follow oldgoat's approach. If a person has justice and love in their heart, we have common ground, and we can work with that. I don't spend much time with anyone else. Usually I don't have disputes with people who have fundamentally different outlooks than me--they usually come in mindset. For instance, when discussing social justice or policies with lawyers and mathematicians who see the world in a very different light, but no less compassionately than I do. But with common ground, I find I can explain my point of view no matter what leftist theory they come from.

People like the Mikhail, I find, aren't really interested in changing minds or finding consensus anyway. They're more interested in machismo and posturing, scratching as high as they can on the oak tree to mark their territory. They want to be right, not better. I have to admit, that's an activity I sometimes find all too attractive, but it's ultimately a dead end.

Whaa? How do you infer Coyote's disagreement with so disparate a figure from mathemagicians and such?

LTJ: "For a Canadian history, Ms. C. might want to try "Reflections of a Siamese Twin: Canada at the End of the Twentieth Century", by John Ralston Saul."

One of the books that made me lose faith in Canadian literary tastes. Wasn't it a best seller? Could my knuckles have been any whiter when I read that book? Mordecai Richler wrote better history than Saul ever dreamed of attempting.

Back to the topic at hand. I find that talking politics, or economics, with anyone is a frustrating experience IF you are attempting to change someone's thinking more towards what you consider proper. Remember when The Guardian tried to get people in Ohio to vote specifically - or strongly suggestively - not for Bush in 2004? The reaction was swift.

Anyhow, if anyone wants to talk with a redneck, often synonymous with right-winger, I'm open to PMs (but not PMS).

quote:For simple history, it's gotta be Howard Zinn. I’m in the middle of reading A People’s History of American Empire, his new graphic adaptation of his book A People’s History of the United States. Excellent for those who want or need a history lesson that doesn’t get taught in school. There isn't one for Canada as far as I know.

I think those who claim to be card-carrying supporters of the Republican Party are somewhere around 36% of voters in the U.S. So I think self-described right-wingers are actually in the minority even in the last bastion of far right conservatism in the world in that country. An estimated 80% of Americans know their health care system, the most privatized in the world is broken and needs fixing. One of every two doctors in the U.S. is now for some form of socialized medicine. And neither of the two prospective cosmetic leaders will give it to them. As Noam Chomsky said recently, U.S. voters have become irrelevant in the scheme of things.

As for capitalism itself, JK Galbraith said that notion of U.S. economy went out of vogue in the 1930's.

And Canada's is a fake "G8" economy. Our fearless leaders have tied our economic fortunes and national security to a dangerous empire whose cold war era extravagance and time for living off the credit of other nations is in decline. It's no wonder to me why some number of Albertans and Quebecois desire to break away and form a real country on their own. Canadians have never had real leadership in Ottawa.

Ann Frank spent her last days as a slave labourer for the corporate-sponsored military machine and fighting for her life against typhus. It's a bad example for pro-kapital side.

quote: How do you define global capitalism?
The concentration of wealth into the hands of a primarily Western economic elite through trans-national corporations supported by extra-territorial legislation, as well as treaties that subvert national sovereignty and national democratic movements.

quote: I donґt see what great positive can arise from lumping all that one views as evil about the world under the umbrella of the term ЁcapitalismЁ.

I don't believe I used the word "evil" in my definition. But is global capitalism evil? In its present incarnation where economic and political rights are concentrated into very few hands, and where exploitation is a critical component, and where environmental degradation - even to the point of jeopardizing human societies on a global scale is a by-product, then I think it is probably a very bad thing. No one argues, for example, the benefits of cancer.

quote:
Would global capitalism then not be people owning things across the world?

It sounds so quaint like someone owning a Royal Dalton figurine. What could be wrong with that?

First it isn't people. It is a small number of people known euphemistically as investors. Their rights, investor rights, trump all others including aboriginal, civil, labour, and environmental.

They have at their disposal state violence and para-militaries, operating under the cover of the state, to employ brutal violence in order to advance their interests.

With their ownership of "investments", they also own, or at least have the freedom to do as they wish, the global commons including the atmosphere, the oceans, fresh water, soil, the minerals, and the fruits of the earth's systems.

The rest of us on a daily basis have our rights - to live freely as citizens of the earth and to take freely from (and return to) the earth - undermined and curtailed until we must turn to corporations, the front organizations of the global capitalist elite, for every aspect of our survival and have it withheld unless we conform to the system that spreads like, well ... a cancer.

[ 07 July 2008: Message edited by: Frustrated Mess ]

quote:Originally posted by 500_Apples:

Colonialism and exploitation exceed the invention of the stock exchange and systemized for-interest banking that have made private ownership viable on a large scale. I bet they will outlive it as well.

You appear to be invoking an old and popular argument. I have read that Victor Perlo's "People's Capitalism" and Stock-Ownership is a very good reply to this particular argument. You can get it for $10.00 here but I'm going to try the library first.

quote: Mikhail asked: ...my question is: how can one explain concepts and simple history to people with such limited mind frames?

Unless there is a need to do this as opposed to a desire to be chatty, say, at a cocktail party or with a co-worker, I don't bother to explain anything to anyone who I think hasn't got a foundation in the basics of history, economics, and politics. I might plant a seed here and there via comments or suggestions but an all-guns-blasting discussion with a person who sees the world so differently than me---nope, I don't have time for it.

If you find yourself feeling lonely because of this you need new friends who think more like you do.

This is my personal daily formula for survival in the real world. I have a different approach when I'm trying to be an activist and want to encourage debate. That's usually something I plan to do in advance, like attending a political rally. But I'm not a walking agitation machine every moment of my life, I pick and choose where I can be most effective.

quote:Originally posted by jayell584:

"The Fight for Canada: Four Centuries of Resistance to American Expansionisn" by David Orchard
http://www.davidorchard.com/online/fight/fightfor.html

I'll have to read it. I see Orchard's book was published in the U.S.

In his book "The Vanishing Country: Is it too late to save Canada?", Hurtig mentions that Canada imports more book titles than any other country in the world, including twice as many as the U.S. on a per capita basis. Well over half the books sold in Canada are produced outside the country by foreign publishers. Over 80 percent of magazines on our newstands are foreign. Over 80 percent of all CDs sold in Canada are foreign, and over 94 percent of film distribution revenue goes to non-Canadians. About 95 percent of screen time in Canadian theatres is devoted to foreign films.

And since 2005, Canada's has become a hewer and drawer economy, once again. This is true even though Brian Baloney promised that free trade with the elephant would deliver "Jobs! Jobs! Jobs! to Canadians. So far Canada has the second largest low wage, non-unionized and lowly skilled workforce in the developed world next to the USA.