Internet filter and the other Satan

Ok, So calling Senator Stephen Conroy the other Satan may be a little melodramatic. But the Senators plans to implement mandatory ISP-level filtering for materials rated RC (or Refused Classification) is not only completely ridiculous, but it wont work.

The proposed internet filter will block a list of somewhere between 1000, 2000 and 10,00 URLS, a number which seems to change every 5 press releases. The list will be maintained and administered by the Australian Communications and Media Authority (ACMA). The blacklist is said to target sites which feature child pornography, bestiality, instructions on crime and other materials illegal in nature.

However, a copy of the top-secret blacklist which was leaked in 2008 by wikileaks.org shows a number of youtube links, regular pornography, wikipedia links, content on euthanasia, religious sites and a number of online poker sites including one this blogger has had a string of bad luck on (now how will I win my money back!). The blacklist also includes links to a Brisbane dentist and a tourism site.

What is more worrisome than the blatently legal sites on the blacklist is the Governments insistence on ignoring condemnation and warnings of failure from a number of high level organisations including iinet, Google, Microsoft, Yahoo!, and even the Obama Administration.

One source (with very negligble reliability...) even stated that the United States government has already imposed sanctions by suspending the AU-US Free trade agreement, and phasing out the E3 Visa scheme. In an online poll the Sydney Morning Herald reported a phenomenal 96% against internet filtering.

Additionally, the filter will do nothing to stop the spread of illegal content through p2p software. The internet is far to lucid to be censored like this and this filter does nothing but gives the Government legal options to filter sites they deem unwanted. Not to mention reports of the filter being easily bypassed.

Anyway, I'm not a journalist or a writer (Obviously!) but this issue concerns me deeply. What's more is this issue has remained largely untouched by government spokespersons but has recieved loud discussion online, why aren't they listening? Hopefully, we will see discussion of this move into the popular media and force responses from the Government.

This issue has given me a headache and I don't want to write anymore.

Please, comment, voice your opinion, and get active.

http://filter-conroy.org/
http://nocleanfeed.com/
http://openinternet.com.au/

Business of the day

I have an Exam for this subject in 45 minutes! Wish me luck!



Compare the models of government-business relations in Sweden and Canada, focusing on Forestry. Which model is best? Why?


The forests of Sweden and Canada have been used for hundreds of years by the native people and continue to be used today on a global scale. As such the forestry industries are corner stones to the economies of each nation state. This essay will compare the two distinct models of government-business relations operating in the forestry industries of Sweden and Canada. It will be shown that the Swedish model of Government-Business relations is superior to the Canadian model. It will be argued that the transparency of government, public participation of citizens, and the regulatory quality in Sweden are all superior to the Canadian models. Firstly, however, the importance and relevance of these three factors will be discussed.

To establish effective and beneficial government-business relations it is important to maintain a high level of consultation between governments, businesses and citizens to ensure that the policies that are introduced are in the best interest of all parties. It must be made sure that such policies work towards progression, not restriction, of industries. Taylor and O’Riordan (n.d.) found that public participation is vital in ensuring that policy implementation and development are efficient and effective, but it is important that there is plurality of involvement between public and private interest groups. However, public participation is only made possible if governments are transparent and information is widely accessible.

In any form of democracy, it is important that all government decisions are transparent and open. If public participation is to be effective and practical, the public must have access to policy information to be able to make informed decisions and conclusions. The OECD states that transparency of the regulatory system is essential to a stable regulatory environment and promotes competition, trade and investment (OECD 2002). More importantly, the OECD states that transparency insures against excessive and unwarranted influence from certain interest groups (OECD 2007c). The OECD illustrates that transparency and openness of decision making are key in attaining good government-business relations (OECD 2007). Furthermore, to guarantee transparency and openness governments must make policy and supporting information easily understandable, have standardised processes for making policy changes, and make published policy widely accessible (OECD 2002). This promotes educated public participation and high quality regulation.

Good regulation and regulatory reform are essential in maintaining government-business relations and ensuring economies are operating in an internationally harmonious way, keeping up to date with economic and market trends. To certify regulation is beneficial to nation states and industries, the regulatory process must be transparent, coherent, comprehensive and competitive (OECD 2007). However, in an industry which has the potential to cause significant environmental damage, such as forestry, there must be further regulation to guarantee natural resources and national assets are not endangered or lost (Ministry of Agriculture 2010). Nonetheless, these regulations must not overly restrict the industry and must therefore be constructed with great care, promoting public participation and in a transparent and open manner.

Sweden, a Nordic social democracy located in the north of Europe, has become a strong global economic force ranking high in many areas (OECD 2007a, OECD 2007b). The forestry industry in Sweden has long been an important industry and key to the economy (Ministry of Agriculture, 2010), Swedish forests have been used by man for hundreds of years (Borealforest.org, n.d.). The forestry industry constitutes a substantial portion of Sweden’s net exports and employs over 100,000 people (Ministry of Agriculture, 2010). Because of this, forestry regulation has always been an important topic dating back as early as the thirteenth century (Borealforest.org, n.d.). Today there is a belief in promoting shared responsibility between foresters and the government (Ministry of the Environment, 2010). More widely, there is a strong culture for producing high quality regulations with transparent procedures and broad consultation mechanisms (OECD 2007).

Similarly, Canada is constitutionally a federation and has a history of high levels of income, good quality of life and strong economic growth (OECD 2002). The forestry industry in Canada is one of the cornerstones of the Canadian economy and is a major component of industrial structure and employment of all provinces (Industry Canada 2010). Canadian power lies largely in the provincial governments but, in some areas, regulatory jurisdiction is shared between federal and provincial governments. Canada was one of the first countries within the OECD to reform trade regulations and continues to do so (OECD 2002). While Canada’s close trade ties to the United States and Mexico through the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) represent liberal deregulation, Canada continues to refine regulatory practices and was one of the original countries to move from complete deregulation to regulatory reform and regulatory management (OECD 2002).

To begin, public participation in policy making is essential in assuring good government-business relations. In Sweden there is a high level of public participation. During the policy making processes there are a number of enquiry points to ensure interested parties can provide input and help identify and remove unnecessary restrictions (OECD 2007b). Non-government organizations such as the Forest Stewardship Council are invited to comment and develop policy, especially regarding environmental concerns (Laurell 2010). Milner (1989) argues that public participation is ingrained in Swedish culture and that one of the fundamental values for Swedes is the “responsibility to participate in common activities” (Milner 1989, p. 49). Additionally, Swedish workers unions are powerful and influential groups with the majority of Swedes belonging to one. The Swedish Forest Collar is a highly active union in Sweden and has around 1300 members, the union promotes member participation in order to help influence and shape forestry management (Sveriges Skogstjänstemannaförbund n.d.). There is a strong culture of cooperation and collaboration with workers unions and they continue to help influence policy decisions (Milner 1989). Because of these enquiry points and the influence of unions, public participation is excellent in Sweden.

In Canada public participation is also an important area. In 1983, Canada outlined a new policy that would focus on increasing public participation in the consultative process by providing early notice of proposed changes (OECD 2002). The Government of Canada’s website provides a section where one can contribute and share opinions on a wide range of specific topics, including forestry initiatives (Government of Canada 2010). Consulting With Canadians is an online government initiative which states that the Government of Canada is “Committed to finding new and innovative ways to consult with [the public]” (Consulting With Canadians 2010). The internet has become a central tool in distributing information including the development of an interactive online training tool to improve understanding and guidance on regulatory policy related topics, making Canada a leader in this area (OECD 2002). However, as of 2007 only 30.3% of workers were members of a union (Human Resources and Skills Development 2007) and therefore, contrary to individual participation, union capacity to pressure and influence government on a common front is difficult, this restricts public participation in Canada. Whilst efforts to promote individual public participation have been large and effective, the low membership levels of workers unions in makes public participation in Canada inferior to Sweden.

Secondly, without accessible information public participation is impossible. Therefore government transparency and openness in the decision making process is essential to maintain good government-business relations. The decision making process in Sweden is extremely transparent and open to discussion from interested parties in all areas of industry. Information is free, easily accessible and protected by legislation ensuring the government publishes all relevant material (OECD, 2007b). According to Transparency International 2009 Corruption Perception Index, Sweden is the third least corrupt country in the world (CountryWatch 2008, Transparency International 2009), it is reasonable to assume that this is heavily influenced by government transparency. The Swedish Government shares information through weekly and annually paper publications, online databases and websites and direct inquiry points aimed at disseminating information (OECD 2007b). There are enquiry points specifically designed for foreign enquiries where interested parties, such as foreign investors, can find specific information on Swedish regulations, and regulations currently being discussed (OECD 2007b). It can thus be seen that public participation is highly valued in Swedish culture.

Canada is similarly transparent and open and the regulatory system has been described as “one of the most transparent among OECD Members” (OECD 2002, p. 33). It is a requirement by law that all draft regulations are published for at least 30 days in the Canada Gazette, the official newspaper of the Canadian government, which allows and encourages participation and comments (OECD 2002, Canada Gazette 2010). The Canada Gazette, published sine 1841, provides the public with detailed information regarding laws and regulations (Canada Gazette 2010). However, initiatives such as the Canada Gazette are tools predominately of the Federal Government. As such information from provincial governments is spread elsewhere and thus can be difficult to find. This in no way implies that the information is not attainable, but that it is perhaps less accessible. For this reason, transparency and openness in decision making in Canada is inferior to Sweden.

The forestry industries in both Sweden and Canada are both key to their respective economies, but they are also natural resources and as such must be regulated with environmental concerns in mind. According to the Ministry of Agriculture (2010) the forests of Sweden are national assets and should be used in a manner which promotes high yields for industries but preserves biological diversity and environmental sustainability. The Swedish ministries for environment and agriculture have made a number of efforts to help protect forests. For example, very recently the government announced that a target of 900,000 hectares will be protected as land of high nature conservation value (Ministry of Environment, 2010). The Swedish Forestry Act dictates a number of regulations, for example forest regeneration and replanting must take place after felling, areas larger than 50 hectares must not be felled and all forest owners must prepare reports on the forest and surrounding environment (Swedish Forestry Agency, 2009). The regulations by the Swedish Forestry Act do not unnecessarily restrict the forestry industry but ensure environmental sustainability and responsibility is achieved. For this reason, regulation within the forestry industry in Sweden is fair and necessary.

As in Sweden, the forestry industry in Canada is necessarily regulated but is far more complex due to its decentralised model. The Canadian constitution states that each province has power over their territory (Department of Justice, 2010) and as such each province retains different laws and regulates the forestry industry differently (Government of Alberta, 2010, Ministry of Forestry and Range, 2004). This has the potential to cause difficulties for interested parties when trying to research legislation and regulation because interested parties must research each province they wish to operate in separately as well as national legislation and comply with a range of different laws. For example, it is in the legislation of British Columbia that no area larger than 40 hectares may be felled (Osberg & Murphy n.d.), however in Alberta no such limit applies and foresters are issued with a timber quota (Government of Alberta, 2010). Simple differences such as this means companies need to go through more bureaucratic processes and slow down operations. However there are a number of cooperative and national groups which promote inter-provincial dialogue. The Canadian Council of Forest Ministers (CCFM) provides a forum for ministers from each province to collaborate and discuss issues regarding the forestry (CCFM, 2010). Nonetheless the regulations are generally necessary and do not unnecessarily restrict the forestry industry however they do provide difficulties in finding relevant legislation and this has the potential to slow down forestry operations due to bureaucratic barriers. For this reason, Swedish regulation is superior to Canadian regulation.

To conclude, this essay has emphasised the importance of public participation in policy making, government transparency and openness in decision making, and the importance of high quality regulation in maintaining good government-business relations. It has been shown that the forestry industry in both Sweden and Canada are important natural resources and national assets. It has been argued that Canada and Sweden both have high levels of individual public participation with many enquiry points provided by the government; however the superior membership of workers within unions in Sweden provides a greater point for public participation through worker cooperation on a common front. It has also been argued that government transparency is excellent in both Sweden and Canada, however due to Canada’s decentralised model; provincial barriers can restrict accessibility to policy and regulatory information. Finally it has been shown that a culture for high quality regulation is inherent in both Sweden and Canada and that many regulations are necessary within the forestry industry to ensure that forests are sustainable and treated responsibly. This is done so successfully in both nations; however, Canada’s provincial laws present bureaucratic barriers and threaten to slow forestry operations. Because of these reasons, it can be concluded that the Swedish model of government-business relations within the forestry industry is superior to the Canadian model.



References

Canadian Council of Forest Ministers. (2010). About Us. Retrieved 6 June 2010 from http://www.ccfm.org/english/aboutus.asp.

Canadian Forests. (2010). Provincial Governments. Retrieved 5 June 2010 from http://www.canadian-forests.com/prov-gov.html.

Canada Gazette. (2010). Consultation. Retrieved 5 June 2010 from http://www.gazette.gc.ca/consult/consult-eng.html.

Consulting With Canadians. (2010). Welcome. Retrieved 7 May 2010 from http://www.consultingcanadians.gc.ca/hm.jspx?lang=eng.

CountryWatch Incorporated (2008). Investment Overview. Sweden Country Review, 13, 91. Retrieved February 23, 2010, from Business Source Premier database.

Department of Justice. (1867). Constitution Acts, 1867 to 1982. Retrieved 6 June 2010 from http://laws.justice.gc.ca/en/const/3.html#anchorbo-ga:s_58.

Forest Stewardship Council Sweden (n.d.). Statistics and Facts. Retrieved February 23, 2010, from http://www.fsc-sweden.org/statistik-och-fakta.

Government of Alberta. (2010a). Legislation. Retrieved 6 June , 2010 from http://srd.alberta.ca/MapsFormsPublications/Publications/Legislation.aspx.

Government of Alberta. (2010b). Forests Act. Retrieved 7 June 2010 from http://www.qp.alberta.ca/574.cfm?page=F22.cfm&leg_type=Acts&isbncln=9780779744855.

Government of Canada. (2010). Public Participation. Retrieved 7 June 2010 from http://canada.gc.ca/forms-formulaires/transac-eng.html.

Government Offices of Sweden. (2007). Nature Conservation and Biological Diversity. Retrieved 5 June 2010 from http://www.sweden.gov.se/sb/d/3879.

Government Offices of Sweden. (2010). Government Reaching Target for Protecting Forest of High Nature Conservation Value. Retrieved 3 June from
http://www.sweden.gov.se/sb/d/12872/a/142959.

Human Resources and Skills development. (2007). Union Membership in Canada – 2007. Retrieved 7 June 2010 from http://www.hrsdc.gc.ca/eng/lp/wid/union_membership.shtml.

Industry Canada. (2010). Forest Industries. Retrieved 3 June 2010 from http://www.ic.gc.ca/eic/site/fi-if.nsf/eng/home.

Milner, H. (1990). Sweden: Social Democracy in Practice. Oxford, New York: Oxford University Press.

Mikic, M. (1998). International Trade. New York: Macmillan Press.
Ministry of Forestry and Range. (2004). Legislation and Regulation. Retrieved 6 June 2010 from http://www.for.gov.bc.ca/tasb/legsregs/.

Ms Laurell (Personal communication, March 4 2010) of the Forest Stewardship Council in Sweden.

OECD (2002). Government Capacity to Assure High Quality Regulation in Canada. Retrieved February 26, 2010, from http://www.oecd.org/dataoecd/47/42/1960472.pdf.

OECD (2007a). Government Capacity to Assure High Quality Regulation in Sweden. Retrieved February 26, 2010, from http://www.oecd.org/dataoecd/45/23/38286959.pdf.

OECD (2007b).Enhancing market openness through regulatory reform in Sweden. Retrieved February 26, 2010, from http://www.oecd.org/dataoecd/45/43/38287525.pdf

Osberg, M. & Murphy B. (n.d.). British Columbia Forest Practices code. Retrieved 7 June 2010 from http://www.fao.org/docrep/w3646e/w3646e0a.htm#TopOfPage.

Swedish Forestry Agency. (2009). The Swedish Forestry Act. Retrieved 3 June 2010 from http://www.svo.se/episerver4/templates/SNormalPage.aspx?id=11303.

Sveriges Skogstjänstemannaförbund. (n.d.). Sveriges Skogstjänstemannaförbund. Retrieved 7 May 2010 from http://www.ssf.ledarna.se/.

Transparency International. (2009). Corruption Perceptions Index 2009. retrieved 30 May 2010 from http://www.transparency.org/policy_research/surveys_indices/cpi/2009/cpi_2009_table.



Word Limit: 2000

Grade Awarded: Credit (75%)

Markers comments: "This is a clear, well written, well structured essay. It’s interesting that with an industry like forestry you’ve chosen to focus on transparency and public participation rather than environmental and sustainability issues."

Idiotes?

What is the Democratic ideal?
In 200 words!!

Democracy has had a long and turbulent history. When Plato and Aristotle discussed Democracy in the time of the ancients they announced it as the most dangerous form of government. Today democracy is believed so strongly that it is held in the highest regard and exported. But what is the democratic ideal?

Lincoln announced democracy as governance of the people, by the people for the people. Is that right? Or does democracy really represent governance of the people by the few for the individual? We have democratic rights to discuss and choose how we want to live, but it has been shown that through demonstration and protest, radical action, real power is in the hands of the people. We see increasing isolationism and atomisation, despite our many political freedoms; so perhaps the democratic ideal is the most effective means of control. We believe we have a say because we have a vote, we believe we have freedom because we have liberty, but do these equate?
The key principle is that the democratic ideal is essentially contested; it is many things to many people. Freedom and liberty or coercion and control?

Fries with that?

“Working today is an Alienating and Bureaucratised Activity.”

Introduction Sociology.

Alienation is one of the more severe criticisms of the capitalist mode of production and is the source of much debate. In an age where essentially every person has or will engage in working for a wage it is important to understand the effects, if any, this is having on people and society. This essay will argue that working today is an alienating and bureaucratised activity but is a necessary factor under the capitalist mode of production. Firstly, this essay will define alienation and bureaucratisation and discuss Marx’s theory of Estrangement and Alienation. Secondly, the causes of alienation will be explored by discussing the effects of bureaucratisation, extreme workplace specialisation, and that alienation is taught in schools. However, this essay will show that alienation is necessary within capitalism because without alienation class consciousness would cause a revolution and therefore workers must be alienated to remain coherent and cooperative.

Firstly, before one can ascertain whether or not alienation exists and has significant impact, one must have an understanding of what the term means. Alienation is a difficult term to define and its meaning is contested. It comes from the Latin alienatio which means, in the social sphere, an “individual’s separation or estrangement from other men, from his country, or from the gods” (Ludz 1975, p11). Marx first defined alienation as the separation of the worker from his means of production (Marx 1844) but it has since been redefined many times. Melvin Seeman (1975) lists six forms of alienation; powerlessness, meaninglessness, normlessness, cultural estrangement, self-estrangement, and social isolation; each being a separate and independent form of alienation (Cited in Meltzer 1978). It can thus be seen that alienation is a complex issue to understand and thus must be defined specifically for the purpose of this essay. Accordingly, this essay defines alienation as the mental and/or physical separation of one person from other people, objects, or tasks. This could include the physical act of isolating ones self from others or becoming emotionally unattached and indifferent to a particular task. Secondly, it is important to understand the concept of bureaucratisation. Bureaucratisation refers to the process in which policy, structure and procedure is introduced into an environment. This usually includes a hierarchical structure, specialist administrative staff, a division of labour, rules and regulations, impersonality, limited and defined objectives, and an emphasis on performance (Udy 1959, Hall 1968). Bureaucratisation is inherent in today’s society and can be seen everywhere; from offices to fast food.

Marx’s Theory of Estrangement and Alienation is one of the more important discussions of the theory of alienation and will therefore be discussed in more detail. Marx was the first to discuss alienation in detail, expanding Hegel’s brief concept, and primarily developed his theories in the Economic & Philosophical Manuscripts of 1844 specifically referring to labour alienation or economic alienation. As previously explained, Marx defines alienation as the process of whereby the worker becomes separated from the work (Marx 1844). To explain further, in pre-modern times a person may have been known by their profession, a potter or blacksmith for example; however in modern times the work performed by the worker is irrelevant and by no means dictates who the worker is, for instance a toy painter in a factory may not identify themselves as a painter or a toy maker, merely a factory worker. Marx argues that;

“[The worker] does not fulfill himself in his work but denies himself, has a feeling of misery rather than well-being, does not develop freely his mental and physical energies but is physically exhausted and mentally debased. The worker, therefore, feels himself at home only during his leisure time, whereas at work he feels homeless. His work is not voluntary but imposed, forced labour. It is not the satisfaction of a need, but only a means for satisfying other needs.” (Marx 1844, p110)

Therefore the more the worker produces, the less he is valued as a commodity due to his deteriorating circumstances. Furthermore, the more he produces the more alienated he will become because, as Marx argues, the worker puts his life into manufacturing these objects, but he does not own these objects and therefore he does not own his life (University of Regina, 2002). It can be seen through these factors that Seeman’s (1975) six factors of alienation become present at this state; most obviously the worker becomes powerless and meaningless. But it is important to discuss whether Marx’s theories remain relevant in today’s ever-evolving society and work-place environment.

In order to maintain business efficiency and expansion, it is essential that standardised policies, procedures, and structures are introduced. Weber (Cited in Jacoby 1973) argues that all things can be controlled by calculation; furthermore he argues that bureaucratisation is attributed with “precision, stability, discipline and reliability” (Cited in Jacoby 1973, p. 149) which are essential for the calculability of results. Because of this, Weber argues that bureaucracy is the most rational method to control human beings. However, Weber also notes that once a person becomes involved in bureaucracy they become bound to their work because of their economic and ideological condition. He also notes that bureaucracy has the potential to “splinter the soul” (Cited in Jacoby 1973, p. 150) through its dictatorial imposition. Blau and Meyer (1971) add that rigid compliance with policy can cause officials to over-conform and become insensitive or indifferent to situations which necessitate lenience. These clearly demonstrate a worker’s alienation through bureaucratisation.

Extreme specialisation within the workplace is also a major contributor to alienation. A company can be made up of many different workers who each specialise in a particular area. One worker may be involved exclusively in making hamburgers, another in dealing with customers, and another in staff management. Because of the restrictive and repetitive nature of the task, the worker becomes separated and thus alienated from the work (Jones cited in Newton 1978, p.83). Shepard (1969) suggests that increased specialisation reduces job satisfaction and that job enlargement programs help to enhance work attitudes. Newton (1978, p. 83) adds that reduced job satisfaction due to these factors decreases worker productivity and therefore is not in the interest of business. Thus, worker specialisation not only alienates workers and reduces job satisfaction, but also reduces worker productivity.

The process of alienation does not, however, begin in the workforce but in schooling. Anderson (1973) argues that the structures of schools themselves are highly bureaucratic and alienating due to six main factors. These factors are; rules and regulations, hierarchy of authority, impersonality, subject matter specialisation, centralisation of control and technical competence. These six factors are persistent within most bureaucratic organisations and, as demonstrated previously, bureaucracy is a key factor in alienation (Weber, cited in Jacoby 1973). Details from the National Longitudinal Study of Adolescent Health support that as school size increases, so to does estrangement and alienation from school work. The study showed that, out of 127 schools and over 71 thousand students, in no school did all students feel fully engaged (Morrison, 2002). Therefore it can be seen that alienation and bureaucratisation begins at a young age in schooling.

However, alienation is a necessary factor to ensure that the current capitalist mode of production is successful. This is because workers must be alienated to ensure class consciousness does not develop and thus cause the overthrow of the bourgeoisie. Torrence (1977) argues that one of the necessary conditions of exploitation is that the proletariat have a low level of social cohesion. As previously defined by Seeman (1973), social isolationism, cultural estrangement and self estrangement are three factors of alienation which produce low social cohesion. Therefore it is in there interest of the ruling class to alienate workers to promote these three conditions and thus ensure that class consciousness would not develop. Marx (1848) argued that once class consciousness developed among the proletariat they would realise the extent of their exploitation and unite against the bourgeoisie

It is also an essential condition of capitalism that workers are alienated to ensure they remain coherent and cooperative with the wishes of the ruling class. The implementation of wage labour ensures that the bourgeoisie can pay the proletariat only enough to exist (Marx & Engels 1848) and thereby maximise profit. Therefore, wage labour is not voluntary but forced and work becomes a means to solely satisfy the needs of subsistence. Marx (1844) argues that this character of labour is alienating and that the bourgeoisie enforce it in order to retain their position of power. This is evident today through the rise of people working multiple part-time or casual jobs (Campbell, Whitehouse & Baxter 2009) instead of full time employment in order to pay for their basic needs. Thus it can be seen that it is necessary for the bourgeoisie to alienate their workers in order to maximise profit and retain their positions of power.

To conclude, alienation is a difficult term to define and understand, it has been used to explain feelings of powerlessness, meaninglessness, normlessness, cultural estrangement, self-estrangement, and social isolation. Bureaucratisation and extreme specialisation both alienate workers and this starts from a very young age within the school system. However, it has also been shown that alienation is a necessary factor in today’s society in order to ensure the success of the current means of production. Marx argued that this is because without alienation, the proletariat would develop class consciousness and revolt against the ruling class and that alienation is thus essential in order to keep the working class coherent and cooperative. Therefore, it has been shown that working today is an alienating and bureaucratised activity, but is a necessary factor under the capitalist mode of production.

References

Anderson, B 1973, ‘School bureaucratization and Alienation from High School’, Sociology of Education, vol. 46, no. 3, pp. 315-334, viewed 19 April 2010 from Academic search Premier database.

Campbell I, Whitehouse G, Janeen Baxter J 2009, Australia: casual employment, part-time employment and the resilience of the male-breadwinner model, Gender and Work Database, viewed on 20 April 2010, http://www.genderwork.ca/cpdworkingpapers/campbell-whitehouse-baxter.pdf.

Hall, RH 1968, “Professionalization and Bureaucratization”, in RH Hall (ed.) The Formal Organization, Basic Books, New York.

Jacoby, H 1973, The Bureaucratization of the World, University of California Press, California, United States.

Ludz, PC 1975, Alienation as a Concept in the Social Sciences, International Sociological Association,

Mouton, Netherlands.

Marx, K 1964, Economic and Philosophical Manuscripts of 1844, trans. M Milligan, Lawrence and Wishart, London, original work published 1844.

Marx K & Engels F 1967, The Communist Manifesto, trans. Samuel Moore, Penguin Group, London, original work publish 1848, original work translated 1888.

Meltzer, L 1978, Worker Alienation, Work in America Institute, Scarsdale, New York.

Morrison, D 20020, Classroom management linked to lesser teen alienation from school, University of

Minnesota, viewed 19 April 2010, http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2002-04/uom-cml040902.php

Newton, K 1978, “The Division of Labour is Limited by the Extent of the Market: A comment”, American Economist, vol. 22, no. 1, p. 83, viewed on 19 April 2010 from ECONlit database.

Shepard, JM 1969, “Functional Specialization, Alienation, and Job Satisfaction”, Industry and Labour Relations, viewed on 19 April 2010, http://heinonline.org/HOL/LandingPage?collection=journals&handle=hein.journals/ialrr23&div=21&id=&page=

Udy, SH 1959, “”Bureaucracy” and “Rationality” in Weber’s Organization Theory: An Empirical Study”, in RH

Hall (ed.) The Formal Organization, Basic Books, New York

University of Regina 2002, Marx on Alienation, Canada, Viewed 16 April 2010, http://uregina.ca/~gingrich/s3002.htm

Word limit: 1500

Grade: 79 (distinction)

Markers comments: "Good effort and good reading of Alienatoin, but you need to back up your theory and assumptions with substantial evidance and explanations of the social process unerlying the issues you describe. That said, with a good exam exam we might already be looking at a top final result grade."

Is Socialism still relevant today?

First essay handed in and received back, have a read , what do you think?

Is Socialism still relevant today?

The ideologies of socialism once shook the western world, for some it was a spectre of hope, for emancipation, equality and freedom. For others socialism represented dictatorship, totalitarianism and barbarism. However, in the last thirty years the spread of liberal capitalism has caused many to question the relevancy of socialism today. This essay will argue that the influence of socialism on current policies affirms its relevance in today’s political sphere. This will be shown through the prevalence of social democracies, the lower levels of inequality within states with social democratic policies, and finally through the ability of these nation states to remain competitive within the global market. This essay will place particular emphasis on comparisons drawn between the United States, a fundamentally liberal state, and Sweden, a particularly significant social-democracy.

Today it seems liberal capitalism, being led particularly in the United States, has triumphed over socialism (Gaus n.d.) and this certainly seems obvious and true in the ideological sense of the word. Countries which label themselves as ‘communist’ or ‘socialist’ have adopted many capitalist policies regarding market openness and world trade, such as in Vietnam (Johnson 2007). Undoubtedly, almost all countries in the modern world adopt liberal-capitalist policies. However, socialism and its ideas still live on through the influence which it has over many countries and it continues to be a topical discussion for debate. As a result, whilst the ideological forms of socialism have passed away; the influences of socialist principles in today’s governments, particularly in countries such as Sweden, persevere and shape societies around the world.

In 1989 the capitalist west claimed victory over the communist east as the Berlin Wall was torn down. This, some argued, marked the death of communism and the ushering in of the ultimate political system (Fukuyama 2004a, 1992b). However, socialism has continued to thrive throughout the globe through the spread of social democracy. Social democratic parties exist in many countries, from Croatia (SDP 2009) and Estonia (SDE 2008) to Korea (GSDP 2009) and the United Kingdom (SDP 2009). In addition, there are numerous nation states where social democratic parties are in power, such as in Sweden (Socialdemokraterna 2003) and Australia (ALP 2010). Social democratic countries around the world continue to advance and support the welfare of their citizens. The very existence of such parties affirms socialism and its principles within modern governance.

One of the more important events for social democracy in recent history occurred in November 2008 as Barack Obama was elected president in the United States (The White House 2009). Since being sworn in on January 20 2009, the Obama Administration has introduced a number of important social reforms, most notably the recent success in attempts to reform the United States health care system. These changes will include “better benefits for seniors and low-income and middle class families” (CBS & AP 2010) and mark a historic victory for social democratic principles over a fundamentally liberal nation state. Undoubtedly, it can be seen that through the prevalence of social democracies world wide, including global superpowers, socialism is still relevant in today’s political sphere.

The principle of equality is one which liberals and socialists have contested excitedly. Socialists argue that equality is represented in the equality of outcome. In contrast, liberals argue that equality of opportunity must be achieved to promote hard work and self preservation. However, Giddens (1999) argues that the liberal faith in equality of opportunity is fundamentally floored because it is based on the principles of meritocracy. Giddens also argues that someone who is marginally more talented than one person is rewarded disproportionately. For example, Tiger Woods is the number one golfer in world and has earned over ninety-two million dollars during his career, thirty million more than the sports second highest earner, and more than double the fourth highest (PGA 2010). With this in mind one can see that equality of opportunity does not promote equality, but in fact fosters inequality because of society’s bias towards one professional over another. This is reflected in the economy of the United States, one of the worlds more fundamental liberal societies, where overall income has grown, but almost all of that growth has been within the highest earning twenty percent of the population, and the largest gains have been within the top one percent. Subsequently the wages for the bottom sixty percent have either remained level or fallen and economic inequality has grown substantially (Collins 2005). The United States suffers from one of the highest poverty ratings within a developed country and suffers from a very mixed human rights record where many of its citizens suffer from discrimination and persecution (CountryWatch Incorp. 2010a).

In contrast, Sweden ranks first in the Human Poverty Index, and sixth in the Human Development Index. Sweden also enjoys one of the best human rights records in the world (CountryWatch Inc. 2010b). Similarly, other countries which have implemented many social policies have also produced very good results in social circumstances. Finland ranks high on both the Human Poverty Index and the Human Development Index (Country Watch Inc. 2010c). Estonia, whilst suffering from high levels of poverty, has good human rights records and developmental standards relative to neighbouring countries (CountryWatch Inc. 2010d). Australia, whilst scoring only fourteenth on the Human Poverty Index, achieved third on the Human Development Index (CountryWatch Inc. 2010e).Therefore it can clearly be seen that countries which introduce socialist policies successfully achieve much higher levels of equality in areas such as poverty and human rights. Socialism must therefore still be relevant in today’s political sphere.

However, concentrating on social welfare does not mean that one must sacrifice global economic competitiveness; countries with social democratic policies still remain prevalent within the global market. The Swedish economy depends highly on its export sector which has been the main force behind Swedish economic growth since the mid 1990’s (CountryWatch Inc. 2010f). Swedish exports during 2006 amounted to around 250 million US dollars and are projected to increase by four point two percent in 2011 (OECD 2009a) and, whilst experiencing negative growth since the 2008 financial crisis, has experienced a growth of nearly eighteen percent Gross Domestic Product per capita since 2003 (CountryWatch Inc.2010g), almost five percent higher than in the United States (CountryWatch Inc. 2010h). In 1995, Sweden attracted over thirteen trillion US dollars in foreign investment capital, which also allowed and supported Swedish owned business to invest elsewhere (Friedenreich & Doyle 1998). These figures reflect and prove that Sweden is a capable and present force within the global market, despite being heavily influenced by socialist principles.

Additionally, many high-level international corporations are based in Sweden or have strong ties to social democratic countries. For Example ASEA Brown Boveri is essentially a Swiss-Swedish multinational company which leads a number of industries world wide and generates revenues around twenty five billion US dollars per year, the company is based in Switzerland with a number of Swedish senior board officials, including the Chief Executive Officer (Taylor 1991). Sandvik is another Swedish multinational engineering company which generates around 10 billion US dollars and employs 44,000 people operating throughout 130 countries (Sandvik 2010). But regardless of its business enterprises, Sweden still remains the most generous donor towards overseas developmental assistance, donating almost five billion US dollars equating to almost one percent of their gross national income (OECD 2009b). Therefore it has clearly been shown that Sweden, which is here used as a representative for social democratic countries, has remained competitive in the global market, sustained economic growth and encourages foreign investment whilst still being able to generously donate to global development. This clearly demonstrates that socialism is still relevant and functional in today’s modern global market.

To conclude, it has been shown that social democracy is a prevalent force in today’s political sphere in a wide variety of countries; these countries are able to balance economic growth with social support. They foster low levels of inequality, high standards of human rights and positive outcomes in human development. Additionally these countries remain competitive within the global market and are able to achieve high levels of Gross Domestic Product growth, encourage large numbers of foreign investors, and produce high quality multinational corporations which lead industries around the world. Therefore, it can be seen without a doubt that socialism is still a time-honoured, effective and influential ideology.

Reference list

Australian Labour Party 2010, viewed 26 March 2010, http://www.alp.org.au

CBS & AP 2010, ‘Congress Completes Overhaul of Health Hare’, CBSNEWS, viewed 26 March 2010, http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2010/03/25/politics/main6333868.shtml

CountryWatch Inc. 2010a, ‘Human Rights.’, United States Country Review, pp. 227-230, viewed 31 March 2010 on Business Source Premier Database.

CountryWatch Inc. 2010b, ‘Human Rights.’, Sweden Country Review, pp. 25-27, viewed 31 March 2010 on Business Source Premier Database.

CountryWatch Inc. 2010c, ‘Human Rights.’, Finland Country Review, pp. 37-39, viewed 31 March 2010 on Business Source Premier Database.

CountryWatch Inc. 2010d, ‘Human Rights.’, Estonia Country Review, pp. 20-28, viewed 31 March 2010 on Business Source Premier Database.

CountryWatch Inc. 2010e, ‘Human Rights.’, Australia Country Review, pp. 30-33, viewed 31 March 2010 on Business Source Premier Database.

CountryWatch Inc. 2010f, ‘Economic Overview.’, Sweden Country Review, pp. 44-49, viewed 31 March 2010 on Business Source Premier Database.

CountryWatch Inc. 2010g, ‘Real GDP and GDP per capita.’, Sweden Country Review, p. 50, viewed 31 March 2010 on Business Source Premier Database.

CountryWatch Inc. 2010g, ‘Real GDP and GDP per capita.’, United States Country Review, p. 379, viewed 31 March 2010 on Business Source Premier Database.

Friedenriech, K & Doyle, E 1998, ‘Out with the old, in with the new’, World Trade, Vol. 11, no. 1, p.30, viewed 31 March 2010 on Business Source Premier.

Fukuyama, F 2004a, State Building: Governance and World Order in the Twenty-First Century, Profile Books, London.

Fukuyama, F 1992b, The End of History and the Last Man, Maxwell Macmillan, New York.

Gaus, GF n.d., Backwards into the future: Neo-Republicanism as a Post-Socialist Critique of Market Society, viewed on 25 March 2010, http://www.gaus.biz/Backwards.pdf

Green Social Democratic Party of Korea 2009, viewed 25 March 2010, http://www.gsdp.kr/

Johnson, K 2007, ‘The spoils of Capitalism’, New York Times, viewed 25 March 2010, http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1592581,00.html

OECD 2009a, Economic Outlook no. 86, viewed 31 March 2010, http://www.oecd.org/dataoecd/5/53/20213258.pdf

OECD 2009b, OECD’s review of Sweden’s developmental co-operation, viewed 31 March 2010, http://www.oecd.org/document/54/0,3343,en_33873108_33873822_43281462_1_1_1_1,00.html

Professional Golfers Association 2010, 2010 PGA Tour Career Earnings, Viewed 26 March 2010, http://www.pgatour.com/r/stats/info/?014

Sandvik AB 2010, Facts in Brief, Sandvik AB, Sweden, viewed 31 March 2010, http://www.sandvik.com/

Socijaldemokratska Partija Hrvatske (Social Democratic Party of Croatia) 2009, viewed 25 March 2010, http://www.sdp.hr/

Sotsiaaldemokatikaatlik Erakond (Social Democratic Party of Estonia) 2008, viewed 25 March 2010, http://www.sotsdem.ee/

Social Democratic Party of the United Kingdom 2009, viewed 25 March 2010, http://www.socialdemocraticparty.co.uk/

Socialdemokraterna (Social Democratic Party of Sweden) 2003, The Swedish Democratic Party: An Introduction, viewed 25 March 2010, http://www.socialdemokraterna.se/upload/Internationellt/Other%20Languages/TheSwedishSocialDemocraticParty.pdf

Taylor, W 1991, ‘The Logic of Global Business: An interview with ABB’s Percy Barnevik.’ Harvard Business Review, Vol. 69, no. 2, pp. 90 -105, viewed on 31 March 2010 on Business Source Premier database.

The White House 2009, The Administration: President Barack Obama, viewed 26 March 2010, http://www.whitehouse.gov/administration/president-obama

Word Limit: 1,500

Grade awarded: Credit (22/30)

Markers comment: "A very good essay!Solid structure with a well developed argument. Good application of theory to analysis and incorporation of real world examples, demonstrating a solid depth of understanding concepts. Written in competent academic style with good evidence of research. However, a heavy relience on internet resources is discourgaed at university and has had a significant impact on your final grade"

Lets go

So what's this all about?

I'm a first year political student at the University of Canberra, Australia. I'll be expressing my political thoughts through this blog, so lets go!

I'll be updating this blog with every essay I write, feel free to criticise all that you read! I'm hoping for some feedback on all areas, my writing style, grammar, language use, content, ideas, structures etc. Everything! I love writing Essays and I want to write good essays!

So have a read and let me know what you think!