Social and Political Philosophy - Science topic

What is your opinion regarding these issues?

Some legal philosophical approaches to these questions can be found in my paper "Extreme Wrong Committed by National and Supranational Inactivity: Analyzing the Mediterranean Migrant Crisis and Climate Change from a Legal Philosophical Perspective", Göttingen 2021.

Watching this webinar on Leo Strauss by the International Association for Political Science Students (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KZqeefnTqsM&t=23s), has led me to wonder about what requires a text to be a great text in the Straussian sense. Do Straussians keep an agreed-upon list of works or authors that meet the criteria?

Which works do you think qualify as Straussian great texts? Are there particular prominent philosophical texts that would not make it? Why or why not?

Who can give me up-to-date source references on non-European legal philosophical discussions, dealing with anthropogenic climate change (e.g. references to conference proceedings or similar)?

Thank you!

Eckardt

How popular are Hegel's ideas in the USA? Can we say that his influence on Communism indicates his being marginalized in American philosophical circles?

Most of the societies across the world are going through doldrums and pathetic situations especially when it comes the homogeneity of these societies.  Even we try to understand the global phenomenon is not much more different case we are also divided at global level. The major point of clash is ideological clash. Even sometimes ideological clashes change into war type of situations. Hence, it is paramount to understand what kind of vision the global leadership have to develop in order to come out from this sort of morass of ideological compartmentalization. On the other side if we try to understand the phenomenon of diversity is crucial for understanding one another. However, we cannot build in the entire world one ideological system that is true. But then how we can can achieve peace in the atmosphere of ideological clashes. What sort of policies and ideas we have to develop in the present globalized world thereby we could reach some sort of consensus. Civilisational dialogue may be the one method but there may be some other methods about which I need holistic picture from your side. Need good feedback from anyone. 

The concept of corruption

(Opening for a draft paper)

Corruption is a matter of “dishonest or illegal behavior especially by powerful people,” including, for instance, government officials or the police; and primary examples of corrupt behavior are bribery and any other inducement by improper or unlawful means.1 The varying forms and expressions of corruption may, in fact, form an unending list, since new, more sophisticated, subtle or covert forms are pretty sure to arise. The more corruption is exposed at any given time and place, the more subtle and covert it tends to become. Partly in consequence, attempts at definition and demarcation of corruption vary and are often problematic or incomplete; “the class of corrupt actions comprise an extremely diverse array of types of moral and legal offences undertaken in a wide variety of institutional contexts including, but by no means restricted to, political and economic institutions.”2

As Lincoln Steffens put a similar point, directly concerned with Gilded Age corruption in St. Louis, Missouri, one had to fear that, “… the exposures by Mr. Folk will result only in the perfection of the corrupt system.”

For the corrupt can learn a lesson when the good citizens cannot. The Tweed regime in New York taught Tammany to organize its boodle business; the police exposure taught it to improve its method of collecting blackmail. And both now are almost perfect and safe. The rascals of St. Louis will learn in like manner; they will concentrate the control of their bribery system, excluding from the profit-sharing the great mass of weak rascals, and carrying on the business as a business in the interest of a trustworthy few.3

In the wake of exposures of corruption in the press, indictments and convictions due to the work of St. Louis public prosecutor Joseph W. Folk, if the good citizens of the city would not or could not take things in hand, then corruption could simply mutate into some as yet unexposed or covert forms. As a general matter, though, in spite of the tendency toward subtler and more sophisticated forms, the old familiar patterns are always being rediscovered and deployed somewhere or other; they never completely die away.

The etymological source of the English word “corruption” is theological Latin,4 which followed traditions of translating ancient Greek moral and political thought. This background is reflected both in the call on moral standards involved in the condemnation and prosecution of corruption and in the broader usages of the word. Corruption, in a secondary sense, is a matter of departure or deviation from an original, or from what is pure, ideal or correct, as in “corruption of a text,” and “corruption of computer files”—where no moral evaluation need be involved. In their original Greek setting, Aristotle’s three “degenerate,” “digressive” or “perverted” (παρεκβάσείς, parekbasis) forms of government, viz., tyranny, oligarchy and (extreme) democracy, are regarded as degenerate precisely because they deviate or “swerve” from proper concern with the common good. They might therefore equally be said to be corrupt forms. As political scientist Samuel Huntington makes a narrower point, “Corruption is behavior of public officials which deviates from accepted norms in order to serve private ends.”5 But not all corruption is political.

1. Cf. “Corruption” in Merriam-Webster.

2. Seumas Miller 2018, “Corruption” in the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. p. 6.

3. Lincoln Steffens 1904, The Shame of the Cities, H.G. Callaway ed. 2020, p. 39.

4. Theological Latin is mentioned in the great Oxford English Dictionary. In consequence of the Latin source, one finds cognate forms in many European languages: English, corruption, French, corruption, German, Korruption, Italian, corruzione, and Russian, korruptsiya. The English “corrupt” derives from Latin, corrumpere = co- + rumpere, “to break.”

5. Cf. Samuel P. Huntington 1968, “Modernization and Corruption” in Huntington 2006, Political Order in Changing Societies, p. 59.

PAGE 2

In spite of our understandable and frequent focus on monetary exchanges involving government officials and favors, corruption need not involve exchange of money and may be either public or private. Public officials accepting envelopes stuffed with cash to favor bribe-givers in the exercise of official powers is perhaps the central, paradigm case of political corruption. Yet, surely, corruption may still exist where no money changes hands. Favoritism toward particular persons, groups or interests might be exchanged for other sorts of “inducements,” for instance, reciprocating preferences in hiring, employment advantages or promotions; and favoritism may involve exchange of useful “insider” information.6 “In some corrupt exchanges, such as patronage and nepotism” argues political scientist Michael Johnston, “considerable time may elapse between receiving the quid and repaying the quo, and the exchange may be conditioned by many factors other than immediate gain.”7

When illicit favoritism is practiced within a particular insider group involving partiality in dispensing jobs, opportunities and other advantages to friends, supporters or trusted associates, this favoritism is called cronyism. Favoritism and partiality toward one’s own family and kinship, nepotism, is illegal in American Civil Service employment practices, and restricted by the requirement to report possible conflicts of interest to stockholders in publicly traded firms. The charge of nepotism fails of legal application in privately owned firms. It is worth remarking, however, that the distinction between “public” and “private” agents and resources is not always entirely clear and straightforward.

The point is reflected in the history of corporate charters. For example, the British East India Company and the Hudson’s Bay Company long effectively ruled large areas of India and Canada respectively. Were these private trading corporations or colonial sub-polities of the British crown and government? Being both, of course, they could legally govern their respective geographic domains with priority and preference given to their own economic and trading interests and profits. The East India Company even had its own army which was effectively deployed in the Seven Years’ war (1756-1763).8 Chartered trading companies acting as sub-polities was a compromising configuration, though it long persisted. Again, while colonial Americans saw their chartered colonial governments as their own, requiring their representation and subject to “the consent of the governed,” the view from London was that they could be modified or abolished by parliament like any corporate or municipal charter in the kingdom.

Lincoln Steffens distinguished several classifications of municipal corruption. This is partly a matter of where to look for corruption. His typology includes police corruption which was especially prominent in the scandals of Minneapolis, and also found elsewhere, for instance, as reported in the Lexow Committee’s exposures of police corruption in New York City. Police corruption involves “protection” of and extortion from illegal but tolerated gambling and vices. Steffens sometimes found municipal corruption, centered in the mayor’s office, the executive and administrative departments and sometimes centered in the municipal legislatures. With corruption centered in City Council, the political bosses could often afford to tolerate a “clean hands” mayor. Steffens also describes financial corruption, for example in St. Louis, which involved “not thieves, gamblers, and common women, but influential citizens, capitalists, and great corporations.”9 Political bosses of the Gilded Age often enjoyed quite cozy relations to large financial and industrial firms or even owned banks themselves. Generalized civic corruption, exemplified by Philadelphia, “corrupt and contented,” involved direct ...

6. Cf. Sung Hui Kim 2014, “Insider Trading as Private Corruption,” UCLA Law Review, Vol. 61, pp. 928-1008: “Private corruption” is defined as “the use of an entrusted position for self-regarding gain.”

7. Michael Johnston 2005, Syndromes of Corruption, p. 21.

8. Relevant in comparison is the literature of Edmund Burke’s later speeches and documentation in the long impeachment process against Warren Hastings (1732-1818), the East India Company’s Governor of Bengal. See, e.g., Isaac Kramnick ed. 1999, The Portable Edmund Burke, Section V. “India and Colonialism,” pp. 363-406; Frederick G. Whelan 2012, “Burke on India.”

9. Steffens 1904, Shame of the Cities, H.G. Callaway ed. 2020, p. 71.

PAGE 3

partisan manipulation of the electoral system and vote counts, integration of political patronage, federal, state and local, with favored business interests plus institutional and popular acquiescence in boss led, machine politics. Even people not directly involved in corruption, still prevalently “went along,” and adopted protective affiliation and coloring of the dominant party in order not to fall into

direct opposition to the party bosses and the machinations of the corrupt system. Even “heads of great educational and charity institutions ‘go along,’ as they say in Pennsylvania, in order to get appropriations for their institutions from the State and land from the city.”10

Though acceptance of bribes among political office holders is the paradigm, corruption also exists in other institutional contexts. For example, embezzlement by a business partner or favoritism in the allocation of funds by a corporate treasurer show the possibility of corruption in private spheres; and “insider trading” of stocks and bonds on the basis of privileged information is criminal in many or most important jurisdictions. Bribery may exist even in “non-profit” sports organizations, influencing the outcome of games or the award of sports events to particular localities. “Corruption involves the abuse of a trust,” writes Michael Johnston, “generally one involving public power, for private benefit.”11 But the involvement of public power and public financing may be more or less remote, unobvious or even absent. The fundamental objection to corruption is moral, whether or not particular forms of corruption are also legally prohibited—though not every moral failure counts as corruption. Corrupt actions are those that disrupt or strongly tend to disrupt moral habits of good character and/or the practices constitutive of the normative and governing purposes of institutions.

Structures favorable to “economic elite domination”12 may be public, semi-public or private. But in any case of corrupt, domination over public or private interests, there will likely and typically be some “ring,” “combine,” “boodle gang,” syndicate or circle (however tightly organized or tacit and diffuse) of self-serving insiders who ignore or discount the common, public interest or the overt, declared and approved purposes of semi-public or private organizations. More generally, “The pattern of corruption … exists whenever a power-holder who is charged with doing certain things, … is by monetary or other rewards, such as the expectation of a job in the future, induced to take actions which favor whoever provides the reward and thereby damages the group or organization to which the functionary belongs, … .”13

Although legal definitions enter into our concept of corruption, the concept is basically moral and normative. “No man is allowed to be a judge in his own cause,” wrote James Madison in Federalist Papers, No. 10, “because his interest would certainly bias his judgment, and, not improbably, corrupt his integrity.”14 The law, a judge and jury are there to see to it that no one is the judge in his own legal case; and we need to be morally concerned with anyone being the judge in a moral conflict of interests to which the same person is also a party. This has a corrupting effect on personal integrity.15 Some degree of cognitive or emotional bias seems to come with the limits of human intelligence and moral sympathy, but persistent, conscious habits and policies based on acceptance or acquiescence in insider bias and favoritism contribute to corruption of every sort.

10. Steffens 1904, Shame of the Cities, H.G. Callaway ed. 2020, p. 141; 141n. The contemporary colloquial phrase in Philadelphia, often critical, is “to go along in order to get along”: a matter of acquiescence.

11. Michael Johnston 2005, Syndromes of Corruption, p. 11.

12. See Martin Gilens and Benjamin I. Page 2014, “Testing Theories of American Politics: Elites, Interest Groups, and Average Citizens,” on usage of this term.

13. Cf. Carl J. Friedrich 1972, “Corruption Concepts in Historical Perspective,” in Friedrich 1972, The Pathologies of Politics, pp. 127ff:

14. James Madison 1787/1937, in The Federalist Papers, No. 10, p. 56.

15. Cf. Zephyr Teachout 2014, Corruption in America, p. 9, Giving a sufficient condition: “a person is corrupt when they use public power for their own ends, disregarding others.”

Does interaction/communication among scientists improve with distance? Do you think scientists communicate the same with next-door colleagues than with those in other countries and continents? for some (increasing amount?), it seems harder to engage in productive discussions with people from their own departments than with colleagues from other institutions and distant countries, affecting the way working groups and future projects are planned and created. Often, international intergubernamental relationships start there and the future of international collaboration is therefore designed there too.

Do you agree? if so, why you think that happens? how would you solve it?

From the Gilded Age to the Progressive Era.

What were the chief problems, and what new federal legislation was passed to meet those problems? What did these problems have to do with the rapid post-Civil War industrialization of the country? What roles did the American Civil War play in the emergence of the Gilded Age (1870-1890)? Why did the Gilded Age give rise to populism and wide-spread protests? And why did populism ultimately pass over into (1890-1920) progressivism? Does the sequence of reform legislation hold any possible lessons for contemporary politics? Who were the chief American populists and the leaders of the progressive movement? What did they accomplish and how did they do it?

Please document your contributions and answers so far as possible.

From the (2002) review by Roger Egbert:

At a time when movies think they have to choose between action and ideas, Steven Spielberg's "Minority Report" is a triumph--a film that works on our minds and our emotions. It is a thriller and a human story, a movie of ideas that's also a whodunit. Here is a master filmmaker at the top of his form, working with a star, Tom Cruise, who generates complex human feelings even while playing an action hero.

See:

The opening scene, demonstrating the effectiveness of crime prevention, based on mysterious predictions of the “pre-cogs,” contrasts with the account of the predictions involving the search for a “minority report.” Though the precogs, it is said, “are never wrong,” sometime they disagree among themselves. The hunt for the dissenting view leads on into political intrigue—which may explain our skepticism of the prediction of crimes –on the part of “the usual suspects.”

The end of WW II signalled an era in which capitalism and communism as political ideologies polarized the world. When the USSR disintegrated, communism as a political idea also collapsed, leaving capitalism also in the lurch because there was nothing left to disagree about! Two decades further, we are talking of Neoliberalism - a heady mix of economic liberalisation with Human Rights and Democracy. Have capitalism and communism really lost their relevance or they have come together in the cauldron of Druid Getafix to be transformed into the 'magic potion' called Neoliberalism?

I am interested in the following questions:

What are extreme democratic outcomes(EDO)? When should they be expected to take place? Do they work under sustainability theory or chaos theory?. Are they the extreme opposite of the normal democratic outcomes that are supposed to come out from democratic models based on majority rule one person one vote? Do they follow normal independent voting/preferences and ranking assumptions?.

And the reasons are:

Without having answers to the questions above, it is difficult a) to predict EDOs and therefore to avoid them; b) it is not possible to see how you can deal with them once they take place; c) it is difficult to see the link between chaos in the creation and the sustaining of the conditions behind the extreme democratic outcome; and d) it is difficult to see what needs to be done to create the conditions for extreme democratic outcomes to revert towards normal democratic outcomes.

The need for a theory of extreme democratic outcomes and democracy

The fact that polling and the media missed the coming the BREXIT and the USEXIT, the subsequent lost of BREXIT and the fact that extreme democratic outcomes did not materialize in France and the Netherlands indicate that a theory of extreme democratic outcomes and democracy is needed urgently.

I am working on a series of papers on the topic right now as it is clear that at least in the short and medium term some extreme democratic outcomes and their consequences are here to stay, and stay longer if we keep treating them as if we are dealing with normal democratic outcomes.

Is anybody here working in the lines of extreme democratic outcomes, a line where normal ideas of voting theories and preference ranking may no longer work?.  Any comments?

I quote from the Encyclopedia Britannica,

Aristotle used the term oligarchia to designate the rule of the few when it was exercised not by the best but by bad men unjustly. In this sense, oligarchy is a debased form of aristocracy, which denotes government by the few in which power is vested in the best individuals. Most classic oligarchies have resulted when governing elites were recruited exclusively from a ruling caste a hereditary social grouping that is set apart from the rest of society by religion, kinship, economic status, prestige, or even language. Such elites tend to exercise power in the interests of their own class.

--pause quotation

The authors are correct here to emphasize “rule by the few,” rule “not by the best men” and the claim that oligarchy is a “debased” or corrupt form of aristocracy, in Aristotle's Politics. As we will see, the usage of the term “oligarchy” has in recent times been often replaced by talk of “elites” --which essentially leaves open the question of whether these elites are good or bad, whether their rule is corrupt, or –importantly—whether they rule in the interest of the common good. For Aristotle, the aristocratic decline into oligarchy consists in "the few" ruling in their own narrow self interest.

Britannica continues:

It is a recurrent idea that all forms of government are in the final analysis reducible to the rule of a few. Oligarchs will secure effective control whether the formal authority is vested in the people, a monarch, the proletariat, or a dictator. Thus, Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels insisted that, throughout capitalism, the key capitalists had controlled the government; they coined the dictum, the state is the executive committee of the exploiting class. The Italian political scientist Gaetano Mosca likewise insisted that a ruling class always constituted the effective oligarchic control. Vilfredo Pareto elaborated the idea in his doctrine of the “elite.” The modern tendency to analyze social patterns in terms of an “elite,” although greatly reinforced by Pareto's theory, goes further back than Marx and Engels, who employed the term “elite” to describe the class-conscious communists, the leading group within the proletariat.

---pause quotation

Here we begin to come to the idea of the “Iron law of oligarchy,” or the “inevitability of oligarchy,” though this becomes more explicit in the passage below. The Marxist description of the elite communists as an oligarchy is interesting and ironic partly because oligarchy became the charge raised against the Communist system by Djilas, the Yugoslav dissident and critic in his classic book, The New Class. If oligarchy could survive even the socialist abolition of private ownership of the means of production, then, of course, this makes the claims for the “iron law” all the stronger.

Britannica continues:

One of the most famous modern uses of the term occurs in “iron law of oligarchy,” a concept devised by the German sociologist Robert Michels to refer to the alleged inevitable tendency of political parties and trade unions to become bureaucratized, centralized, and conservative. His reasoning was that, no matter how egalitarian or even radical the original ideology and goals of a party or union may be, there must emerge a limited group of leaders at the centre who can direct power efficiently, get things done through an administrative staff, and evolve some kind of rigorous order and ideology to ensure the survival of the organization when faced by internal division and external opposition. Subsequent writers of various persuasions have attempted either to expand on Michels' thesis, extending it to legislatures, religious orders, and other organizations, or to restrict or criticize the thesis, charging that the iron law of oligarchy is not universal and that some unions and parties do maintain a viable system of democratic expression and governance.

---pause quotation

If the “iron law” fails, then it must be the case that oligarchy is not inevitable under just any conditions, or in all situations. What then are the facilitating conditions and what kinds of conditions tend to defeat the rule or control of oligarchy?

Britannica continues:

Political science and sociology are beginning to differentiate more carefully between various types of control and power. The type of power held by a democratic party boss, while overwhelming in relation to any single member of the party, is very different from that wielded by the boss of the single party in a totalitarian and authoritarian pattern. Likewise, the control group within an organization does not occupy the same position under democratic conditions (which provide for the group's being effectively challenged by outsiders at any time) as it does under an authoritarian plan. If effective control changes hands as rapidly as it does in a city of the United States or a British trade union, it is doubtful that those exercising it should be spoken of as a “class” or an “elite.” The expression “the few” is too abstract to convey much information. Like the other purely numerical concepts of government inherited from Greek philosophy, oligarchy is an outmoded term, because it fails to direct attention to the substantive features of a government.

---End quotation

Well, if the term “oligarchy” is outmoded, it is somewhat surprising that the political scientists have begun to use near synonyms, such as “biased pluralism” --with the bias typically favoring the upper incomes. Again, there is “economic elite domination,” also quite current, which suggests in turn the theme of “policy capture,” and the domination of economic and tax policy by large-scale institutions and great wealth. No doubt, we want to distinguish between political control, kinds and conditions of political control --and with special attention to the reasonable prospect of a given ruling-set being turned out. The term, ”rule by the few” is indeed too abstract to capture even the concept of oligarchy. It is more a matter of “rule by the few”-- in their own self-interest, and ignoring the common good. Oligarchy is not merely numerical, it is also a moral and political concept –which can't be reduced to numbers alone.

See: the Britannica article, here: https://www.britannica.com/topic/oligarchy

It has been said that our contemporary experience is that of the "lived dystopia" of Modernity. This social imaginary directly confronts the narrative of the "imminent threshold", the point of no return set in the near future, beyond which environmental degradation and other social problems are portrayed as definitely intractable. This question bears directly on our understanding of political hope in the present World: Should we hope to avoid the imminent catastrophe, or should the domain of hope rather be focused on coping with a dystopia that is already here?

At the foundation of principled nonviolence is the moral obligation of noncooperation with and/or resistance to injustice, oppression, tyranny, etc. I am interested in the various schools of thought, literature, that addresses the rational basis of this obligation. What are the reasons that ground this obligation? Why should we resist or not cooperate with injustice?

Is there any theological relationship between the values of US citizenship and US imperialism and military expansionism?

I borrow part of a blog text on Niebuhr, which strikes me as very accurate:

Niebuhr, Reinhold - Moral Man and Immoral Society: A Study in Ethics and Politics

 

Introduction

In the introduction to this work Niebuhr states his thesis clearly and succinctly. His overarching thesis is that a sharp distinction must be drawn between the moral and social behavior of individuals and groups, including nations and economic classes. Individuals are able to overcome their egotism and transcend themselves and their interests and consider others. Groups, however, lack this capacity. This is a result of collective egoism in which individuals sublimate their individual egos into the group, but the group re-expresses this egoism at a higher level causing intergroup conflict.

Niebuhr, thus, aims to engage in a polemic against moralists, those thinkers who think that the same resources that allow individuals to transcend their egos in their personal relationships, rationality or religion, can also be used in order to establish harmony between groups. Niebuhr argues that the moralists do not realize the limitations of rationality and religion to check the overwhelming egoism and self-interestedness of groups. They also do not realize the way in which rationality is bent in order to serve group interests and how human being lack the moral imagination to sympathize with others outside of their personal interactions. In contrast, he argues that the relationships between groups, both classes and nations, will always be governed by a clash of forces. Ethics may govern relations between individuals, but politics and, thus, the power of coercion must always govern the relations between groups.

Chapter One: Man and Society: The Art of Living Together

Niebuhr's overarching point in this chapter is that social relations are governed by a dialect in which "power sacrifices justice to peace within the community and destroys peace between communities."

See:

The conclusion I am inclined to draw from Niebuhr is that collective egoism, since it generates collective conflicts and exaggeration of collective conflicts, is much more dangerous that the fleeting egoism of individuals --who may, in fact, effectively oppose collective egoism. 

I quote from the Encyclopedia Britannica on the concept of "state capture."

State capture, the domination of policy making by private, often corporate, power.

In the second half of the 20th century, the concept of state capture was used in the early critique of the pluralist theoretical framework in political science. According to pluralism, a multiplicity of interest groups prevents any particular group from being dominant. However, the counterargument was that interest groups are not equally endowed with resources. Many commentators argued that business represents a very strong power system—far stronger than any other social group or institution—that challenges and threatens to dominate public power. The term capture describes how public bureaucracies had become dominated by strong and powerful interest groups. In a context characterized by a complex multitude of interest groups, the bureaucrats tend to deal with the best-organized groups as a way of reducing complexity.

--pause quotation

The concept of pluralism employed here is what is called "interest-group pluralism," and which contrasts with alternative conception of social or cultural pluralism. It seems that continued emphasis on understanding society in terms of competing interest groups has tended to convert particular societies into configurations of contending interest groups.

The article on "state capture" continues:

State capture has been used in the critique of corporatism as well. Corporatism refers to the permanent representation of well-organized hierarchical interest groups in the state apparatus, a phenomenon that may be seen as a way of the state giving in to specific interests. Both the critics of pluralism and the critics of corporatism argue that private corporate power must be controlled by democratic institutions.

---Pause quotation

The concept of "corporatism" is somewhat wider than may be suggested in this passage. "Corporate" elements, surely, may be public or private, and still capable of exerting undue influence on policy. For example, one may think of the "military-industrial complex" as a "corporate" element, partly public, partly private, partly popular, but capable of maintaining itself against democratic criticism by its institutional momentum and political connections. Much the same may be said of the national security state. But once we observe the role of such public agencies in terms of their political influence over policy, then a larger range of public and public-private institutions may also come to be considered, insofar as such agencies are capable of capturing policy in such a way as to ignore broader public interests.

The Britannica article also comments on "state capture" in post-colonial and post-communist societies:

In the literature on postcolonial societies, the concept of state capture refers to rulers favouring their own ethnic or regional groups rather than the nation as such; the state is thereby captured by a specific group. A weak state may be the most prone to be captured by interest groups or even by strong individuals. A relatively strong, institutionalized state may therefore be necessary in order to avoid state capture. An institutionalized party system also may be important, for where parties are weak, traditional forms of elite interaction tend to prevail, enabling elites to capture the state apparatus.

State capture has also been related to the post-communist region where it described a policy process dominated by powerful oligarchs that belonged to the old nomenklatura elite. Experts studying this phenomenon have defined state capture as a situation in which decisions are made to appease specific interests, maybe even through illicit and nontransparent private payments to public officials, rather than to suit the national interest aggregated and mediated through a democratic process. State capture takes place when the basic rules of the game are shaped by particularistic interests rather than by the aggregated national interest.

---End quotation

I take it that undue emphasis on the phenomenon of interest group pluralism and interest-group competitions within any society may convert the purely descriptive approach in political science into an implicit approval of the excesses of political competitions for private and institutional gain --thus submerging the public good and broader conceptions of the public interest. But the dangers of policy capture focus critical attention on the idea of a society based on interest-group pluralism.

For the Britannica article, see:

Are they good reasons behind the pessimism?

Sixty percent of rain water that falls on land surface of the Earth reaches directly the oceans as surface run off due to human failure to use it efficiently to meet the genuine needs of living resources of the world. Is linkage or networking of all world water bodies, useful to drive out deserts and desertification process?

Otherwise known as the European Economic Recovery Plan, what came to be known as: The Marshall Plan was a package loan of 12 billion (120 billion in Dec. 2016 fiat) to World War II torn nations across Western Europe. Its secondary goal – which was equally successful – was a “policy of containment” for the spread of communism into collapsed capitalist economies. Prior to, but in relation with the Marshall Plan was The Truman Doctrine – which was ultimately military (not economic) aid to Turkey and Greece as a state deterrent to the revolutionary idiosyncrasies of communism.   As a result, European economies grew at a rapid rate; the consequential steel and coal industries and regulations gave rise to the rudimentary framework for today’s European Union.

The Marshall Plan establishes an objective precedence for a global economic recovery plan; 'humanitarian equity' to (counter-) balance today’s credit-driven hypercapitalist & militant attitudes with Marxist & social justice ideologies; in more reductive terms – a practical alliance between progressive and conservative, liberal and republican, left and right. This proposed “global economic recovery plan”, I sum up under the moniker – Concept Zero henceforth to elucidate the necessary absent cause effects that would be critical in the achievement of the objectives entailed. These objectives may also be summed up in a slogan:

 “Always working toward the larger picture – having all that we want and none of what others need.”

This may have a particularly Marxist tone to it in reflection of the slogan:

“From each according to his ability, to each according to his need.”

However, the Concept Zero slogan leaves more open the distribution factor – which is usually implemented by a socialized state apparatus. To that effect - the notion that: self-sustainment is an ultimate virtue; but it may only be taught & not enforced, replicated but not simulated - is a particularly useful analysis for autonomous societies and peoples seeking independence.

I am imagining my project within the context of Body and Political Economy among African nations which experimented with socialism. Thanks!

Digital transformation is mere dream and infinite miles away from reality in India! What do you think?

[UPDATED FROM: Is “Western” liberal democracy essentially unique, or have other systems with similar values flourished in other places and times? 

For example, might some small city-states such as the Vatican perhaps, at some points in their history, developed similar values?

If so, what led to the failure of their values to spread and survive?

If not, does it require a hegemonic civilisation to establish, guarantee and maintain the values [link 1] of:

- fair, free, and competitive elections between multiple distinct political parties,

- a separation of powers into different branches of government,

- the rule of law in everyday life as part of an open society,

- the equal protection of: 

-       ? 

(Aiming to broaden HGC’s ILDiD question [link 2])

I’m looking for any work done on the concept of freedom (interchangeable with liberty) which analyzes it in terms of form and content. My meaning is that the concept of freedom is construed as consisting of two different and opposing elements. The form of freedom is understood as an independent choice between alternatives. It is a formal notion of freedom because it concentrates on the mere existence of alternatives open for the independent subject to choose from, and disregards the actual and concrete choice that has been made. From a formal point of view, as long as the subject has a wide enough range of alternatives to choose from, and is not forced or coerced in any way to choose (or not to choose) any of the given alternatives, the subject is free, and there is no substantial difference between the different alternatives. I.e. different alternatives such as growing red roses, studying philosophy or joining ISIS, will all be regarded as essentially equivalent. By contrast, the content element of freedom emphasizes the concrete choice that has actually been made. It regards the content of the choice and evaluates it according to some criterion or principle (e.g. moral, political, utilitarian, etc.). From a content point of view it is a necessary condition of the freedom of the subject that she’ll not only choose independently, but also that she’ll choose the right choice (by some standard or criterion). The simplest way to describe the opposition between the two elements is by noting that any constraint we put on the content will necessarily reduce the range of alternatives open for choice. It is also noteworthy that the two elements may be construed as prerequisites for a comprehensive notion freedom, thus making the opposition between them necessary. The formal element is necessary for the obvious reason that there’s no freedom without free choice. And the content element is necessary because without it free choice becomes completely arbitrary.   

Any work related in any way to the issues I described will be helpful. The famous negative vs. positive concepts of freedom does not, to the best of my knowledge, invoke explicitly the form-content distinction. And the only work I know of which is somehow close to this distinction is Charles Taylor's 'What's wrong with negative liberty'.

Thomas Hobbes (1588-1679), the influential English political philosopher, claimed that the human condition without a government capable of enforcing peace and stability, and able to protect citizens from both internal and external threats to their well-being would be a perpetual "war of all against all". In such a condition, life would be "solitary, poor, nasty, brutish and short".

It can be inferred from his political thought, that any functioning government would be preferable to the conditions which would prevail without a government.  Hobbes has civil war in mind, specifically, when he thinks of the worst situations possible without intact government.  He would point to the break-up of the former Yugoslavia or to the chaos in Iraq currently, as examples of the conditions which would prevail without government.

On the other hand, many observers would point to the totalitarian regimes of the 20th century., such as Nazi Germany or the Soviet Union to make the case that some governments are worse than no government at all. 

I want to find out if someone in Pakistan working on Meritocracy? I  also want to find researchers in other parts of the world to please interact with me who are working on meritocracy. Anyone?

According to Dr. M.L. King, "The arch of the moral universe is long, but it bends toward justice." This very famous quotation is inscribed on the King Memorial in Washington, D.C., and President Obama had it woven into the new rug in the Oval Office in the White House. Is this true or false, and what exactly does it mean? It can be easily thought of as a doctrine of "Divine Providence" or "historical inevitability." But many are skeptical of these ideas. Does "Divine Providence" or "historical inevitability" exist? Can we be sure that the future will eventuate in desired, moral outcomes--that the universe "bends" toward justice? 

The quotation from king's speeches to widely though to derive from a sermon of the 19th-century Unitarian Minister, Theodore Parker. See the following expert account of the matter:

But in the end, the question is whether this is true or false. Does the universe bend toward justice? Can we be sure of the moral outcomes of history? Readers may wish to consider a further quotation in relation to this question, from the Persian poet, Hafiz:

'Tis written on the gates of paradise, "Wo upon him who suffers himself to be betrayed by Fate."

The suggestion here is clearly that it is possible to refuse. This appears to be a rejection of historical inevitability.

As a sociologist, I'm looking for historical, economic, and political literature that provides background information on the proliferating call center industry in the Balkans, and in particular Serbia. Preferably scholarly sources that analyzes this phenomenon.

Are there any resources focusing exclusively or primarily on this topic? Doing a research that (among other things) concerns the inculcation of Confucian values by non-elite social strata in Joseon Korea, as well as the various responses to these processes by the so-called commoner and lowborn people; so far found a few interesting texts but I am wondering what others can recommend me. Could be on Ming/Qing society as well (since I am considering to add comparative elements to my research); detailed elite (ie. by scholars, aristocracy, etc) opinions on lifestyles/beliefs of lower social strata are fine as well.

There has been much attention to the political thought of Edmund Burke of late, and this arises, in part, out of the long felt tension between Burke on the American crisis of the late 18th-century, Burke on Irish emancipation and Burke on India, vs. Burke as the most famous opponent of  the French Revolution. One key to this is to understand Burke on rights. He makes many appeals to rights, and clearly gives them a high moral status, yet he opposes doctrines of "abstract" rights, and this comes out in his criticisms of the French Revolution.

As an opening to discussion, I recommend the following short (45 Min.) video from Trinity College, Dublin, given by the British philosopher Onora O'Neill:

This talk is an excellent probing of Burke on this issue, and some considerable sympathy with Burke is expressed at the end of the talk.

The chief text will surely be Burke's Reflections of the Revolution in France which is widely available on line, e.g.:

However, it is doubtful that anyone can understand Burke on rights and his relationship to contemporary doctrines of human rights, without broader readings. I expect we will need to add some further texts later on, if this question evokes some interest.

To maintain balance, the system must feature surplus recycling mechanisms that maintain the flow of surpluses from the future to the present, from the urban centres to the rural areas, from the developed regions to the less developed ones, etc.

Criteria for recycling surplus - the difference principle - all inequalities in the world - in favor of the worst-off members of world society

I am a researcher investigating the relationship between Marx and Fichte's bodies of work.

Alan Kirby states that postmodernism is over. The media is full of post post modern theory become reality. What will form the philosophical backbone of the new epoch? 

The turn of century always seems to yield initial confusion, an instinctive need to change possibly, that takes 20/30 years to resolve itself. The 21st century opened with the most extreme seismic change in methodology and possibility since the industrial revolution, possibly of all time. This massive digital shift has redefined our lives completely. Is it possible that philosophical thought is now so splintered and personal that there will never again be single thought schools?

After Rawls British political theory is not in its best mode.  Although we have got theorists like John Gray, Michael Oakeshott and Roger Scruton, surely, one should take into account other authors and oeuvres as well.. How would you sketch a meta-narrative of contemporary British political philosophy?

De Tocqueville's theory of the social-political establishment follows his analysis of the Old Regime and the French Revolution; and he argued that violent revolution came to France because the nobility degenerated into a caste and refused to absorb new people of power, affluence and influence--the rising middle class. The British upper class, led by the Whig establishment, in contrast, absorbed the new middle class, avoided revolution and remained a ruling establishment. (The Whigs were later displaced by the British Liberal party.) The French nobility retained their privileges at the expense of power and authority, while the British Whig establishment shared their privileges precisely in order to rule. The argument is, then, that one better maintains a free and stable society by maintaining a balance between the liberal democratic and the authoritative, established aspects of society. Extending De Tocqueville's ideas a bit, it seems clear that the danger of caste is especially prominent whenever the boundaries of the establishment are drawn on ethnic lines in a multi-ethnic society. 

This persistent question is often known as the problem of "dirty hands" (from Sartre). First, this question excludes actions by political leaders which are merely aimed at benefiting the politician him/herself at the expense of the governed or the common good. This sort of self-serving corruption and is both morally and legally wrong.  

Although Socrates alludes to the dirty handed feature of politics in the Apology, its first clear presentation is by Machiavelli (1513), who advises that the Prince "must learn how not to be good" in order to protect the state and keep it intact. Doing what is best for the people often requires doing that which violates principles of private or conventional morality, such as truth-telling or promise-keeping.  

Two examples: In 483 BC, Themistocles, the Athenian politician and general saw the need for a stronger navy to protect Athens against the Persian empire. Unable to convince the democratic assembly, he lied and told the assembly that there was a threat to merchant ships from the small nearby island of Aegina. Political opinion then swung in favor of a stronger navy which did later show itself to be decisive in protecting Athens from the Persians.  After election for a second term in 1864, US President Lincoln believed, with good reason, that unless the 13th Amendment to the Constitution (abolishing slavery) was proposed by the lame duck Congress during what was left of his first term, it would be unlikely to be proposed at all.  With Lincoln's support, his political operatives bribed certain outgoing members of Congress with public positions, such as postmasterships, in exchange for their votes to propose the13th A.  It was proposed by Congress and then ratified by the states.

The claim is that what is the right action for a political leader to take in pursuing the common good may often conflict with conventional or private morality.  My question above is intended to allow reasoned arguments to be presented about the correctness or incorrectness of that claim.  There are two related questions. First, if the claim is correct, what sort of moral responsibility, if any, does a dirty handed politician taking actions that are right politically, but at the same time, violate conventional morality bear for those actions?  Second, if there is moral responsibility to be borne by political actors, then to what degree, if any, do the people in a direct or representative democracy, share in that moral responsibility?

In addition, the office holders are usually portrayed as the political leaders even in a democratic setting. Is there any scholars who has questioned this?

I still don't see any other viable and meaningful alternative to economic liberalism (democracy) except socialist democratic alternative that emerged in parts of Latin America in recent years. Without it, we are permanently damned to discuss the non-politics of the apolitical politicians. Those who disagree will do me a favor.

There are arguments that the solution to contemporary problems, such as global terrorism, violent conflicts, global environmental degradation and poverty, have made global cooperation or a world government inevitable. what do you think?

Mathematics justifies that greed and extreme selfishness cause economic collapse of societies.

Any system that is established from relations from different groups and the forces created thereof, continues to exist if the relations remain fair and the forces that are created from the relations to keep the system alive remain on balance and valid to all parts. When one of the forces dominates to the extent of diminishing the strength or eliminating the powers of others, then only a force of pulling towards the dominant entity remains and that leads to the collapse of the system - this is what I call it the black hole syndrome.

What do you think, is greed and extreme selfishness the cause of economic system collapse?

Liberalism is a political philosophy or worldview founded on ideas of liberty and equality. Liberals espouse a wide array of views depending on their understanding of these principles, but generally they support ideas such as free and fair elections, civil rights, freedom of the press, freedom of religion, free trade, and private property.

This freedom of ideas, thoughts and attitudes can, on many occasions, to oppose the rights of others. An example is in the school liberalism, where, often, parents and students do not take school guidelines with respect to student behavior in classroom, becoming a negative liberalism. How can this be improved?

Outlining four key issues in our globalizing economy (unprecedented wealth, unprecedented poverty, ecological challenges and political and economic volatility), Professor Guptara goes on to provide a historical survey from prehistoric times (demonstrating that the roots of the current crisis lie in the Darwinians and Nietscheans defeating the moral and ethical values of the Protestants), and concludes by presenting seven essential steps to creating the right kind of globalization.

These seven essential steps in Professor Guptara (2010) opinion are:

Our culture needs to be focused again on a realistic optimism not a fatalistic pessimism.

We need to restore education to its function of nurturing citizenship and genuine personal fulfillment – and move away from the present function of training people for employment by the elite.

The media needs to be restored to the function of truth-telling, by removing the obsession with entertainment.

Political parties and representative democracy should now be abolished, and direct democracy installed instead.

Fundamental and even applied research needs to be liberated from the trammels of private sponsorship.

A global minimum wage and/or guarantees need to be introduced for food, clothes and shelter.

Fundamental reforms are needed if the global economy is to avoid becoming an enslaving economy.

Source: Guptara, P. (2010). Towards creating the right kind of globalization: an analysis - with proposals. Journal of Organizational Transformation and Social Change, 7(1), 89-103.

I really liked these seven essential steps - well, in your opinion, can we implement these - and how easy would that be --- further, do you have any other points that can be added?

Thank you for your contributions.

I'm particularly interested in it from an actual/virtual Deluezean sense, or in terms of Baudrillard's simulacrum, where the (in this instance surveillance data) is not a copy or data-double in the sense used in surveillance studies, but is truth in itself. Haven't seen anything useful, but may be looking in the wrong places...

How much does culture influence heuristic thinking? Are there parallels between the types of visual illusions to which different cultures are susceptible?

Understanding the notion of Spaces in Indian Context (taking a case of Kumbh Mela) through the paradoxes these spaces hold within itself. Taking the case of Kumbh Mela, one was able to portray out the experiential journey of 2001, 2007 & 2013 Kumbh Melas. Moreover, they gave a variety of understanding through extreme cases of these paradoxes, which are appearing in greater amplitude, due to the small time frame this event comes out on the calender, but leaves a strong impact on the minds & history of mankind altogether.

supra state was the agreement that India government and Nagalim is trying to sort out after decades of insurgent conflict. this is in the context of Naga ethnic group fight for separate government to maintain their identity and culture and historicity.

What do you think Hobbes's idea of Human Nature?