A Criticism of Systemic-centric Theorism: Part 1 – Introduction

Figure 1. A graphical summary of the introductory premise.

For this post, I’m going to spin the gear in the opposite direction. Instead of providing a neutral post with two sides, I will present my opinion on the levels of analysis in international relations, which can be defined as the systematic assortment of complexity of international matters.

To be brief, there are three layers: individual (I), domestic (D), and systemic (S). The individual layer considers events occurring in relation to the individuals within nation. The domestic component relates to the internal issues within the nation. Finally, the systemic level itself considers the internationality and the relations of countries with each other.

There are a good number of theorists who are systemic-centric, meaning that they analyze international affairs with little or no focus on the individual and domestic levels, placing their attention solely on the systemic layer. They assert that the systemic layer, as opposed to the other two categories, is constant and changes to very minor extents.

I greatly disagree with this approach. I do not have a problem with how the systemic layer is being approached, but rather, how it is being treated in relation to the other two levels. I hypothesize that the prioritized treatment of the systemic level greatly broadens the critical analysis at hand and disregards much potential detail.

Primarily, I must ask, can there be two or more simultaneously occurring levels of analysis? I speculate that indeed, there can – there is no question to it. If a nation performs an action that affects the internationality, it will not wait until the effects on the global community will subside. Rather, it will continue functioning and carrying out actions within its own domestic sphere.

On the basis of this, I declare a relation between the three theoretical levels of political analysis.

Primarily, an individual may transmit their power through the domestic level to perform functions that affect the domestic level.

                This can be shown as I → D.

It should be noted that they cannot directly transmit power to the systemic level. It is postulated that this is a task too great to handle, so an individual must act through a force bigger than they but large enough to be subject to influence and control.

                This demonstrates the impossibility of I → S.

Therefore, the individual must transmit their power through the domestic level to achieve influence on the systemic level.

                This can be modeled as D → S.

As a whole, it can be said that I → D → S.

It is thus evident that the individual and domestic levels form part of the scope when conducting political analysis.

Idealism vs. Realism: G8 Summit

     

As recently reported by the Globe and Mail [1], Canada’s Prime Minister Stephen Harper focused on the improvement of maternal health and the reduction of child mortality at the recent G8 summit. This has been one of the more interesting G8 topics of the past. Amidst this discussion, however, there exists a clear dichotomy between the two political ideologies of idealism and realism.

The Problem

Pay heed to these statistics relating to children’s health. [2]

> 37% of under-five children die in their first month of age per year

> Maternal mortality leaves over 1 000 000 children / year motherless and vulnerable.

Now examine these goals, to be achieved by 2015. [3]

> Reduce the under-five mortality rate by two-thirds.

Moreover, consider the following statistics relating to maternal health. [4]

> Maternal mortality rate decreases by less than 1% / year.

> 500 000 women / year die from complications caused by childbirth/pregnancy.

> Every year, ~ 19 000 000 unsafe abortions are conducted, resulting in ~ 68 000 deaths.

> Maternal mortality leaves over 1 000 000 children / year motherless and vulnerable.

Afterwards, consider the following goals, to be achieved by 2015. [5]

> Decrease maternal mortality rate by 5.5% / year to a total of 75%.

> Achieve universal access to reproductive health by 2015.

For both goals, finances are lacking, and despite steady increases in monetary supplies, the UN calculates that it is not enough to speed up progress so that the goals may be achieved by 2015. Health-wise, the same situation is in place – despite many victories over diseases that threaten child health, for example, the goals are still not likely to be fulfilled in time. The UN writes:

“Despite progress, in 62 countries, under-five mortality is not declining fast enough to meet the Goal 4 target … by 2015.” [1]

This is clearly a grim situation. The statistics – what is really happening – show only slight progress. The goals – what should ideally be happening – are far away. What is even graver is that these goals were established in 1990. This means that despite the twenty years the UN has had to fix the problems up to this point, they are far from being fixed. As the UN stated:

“... it is the area of least progress among all the MDGs.” [4]

This kind of issue calls for international aid, and any willing country can join the cause. This is what Harper has opted for Canada to do.

The Idealistic Approach

On the basis of moralpolitik, a nation should aid another nation in need because it is indeed a moral action and the right thing to do. The nation receiving aid should eventually improve and a mutual relation should be forged between these two countries, ensuring that no conflict will occur in the coming.

The Realistic Stance

The notions of humanitarianism and philanthropy are two of many different methodologies of increasing a nation’s international reputation. However, it also places nations receiving aid in a subliminal position of debt. These nations will be expected to ally their benefactors and support them in future times of economic/military/political conflict.

The combination of humanitarianism and philanthropy thus acts as a way to increase a nation’s power. This is essential from a neorealistic perspective for two reasons:

> All states are rational and unitary actors.

> The acquiescence of power leads to security.

Because states are rational and unitary actors, one of their primary concerns is security. When a state uses power to establish security, this new security will provide a strong foundation for the state to acquire even more power. This can be connected to Hobbes’ writings from his Leviathan (1651). He writes that the cause of the desire for power:

“… is not always that a man hopes for a more intensive delight than he has already attained to, or that he cannot be content with a moderate power, but because he cannot assure the power and means to live well which he has present without the acquisition of more.” [6]

In other words, men desire power in order to maintain the power they currently have. This is important because it increases a nation’s odds of survival in an anarchic and innately chaotic world, which Hobbes also theorized.

“… which is worst of all, continual fear and danger of violent death; and the life of man solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short. . . .” [6]

Therefore, it is becoming clear that by establishing Canada as a benefactor, Harper’s is taking a realistic stance in his proposition for the combating of maternal and child mortalities.

There is another viewpoint one can take when examining Harper's actions and that is that of the behaviour prescribed by Machiavelli in The Prince (1513). Harper exhibits various qualities of Machiavelli's prince in this scenario. 

Machiavelli theorizes that a prince does not need to be qualitative – he need only appear qualitative. He writes:

“Everyone sees what you seem, but few know what you are, and these few dare not oppose themselves to the opinion of the many, who have the majesty of the state to back them up.” [7]

Harper is most certainly making his G8 decision under this prescribed behaviour, and what better way to make Canada look benevolent on the international podium? If Harper actually does act and make a significant contribution, then he will be exercising generosity, another feature of Machiavelli’s prince (providing it is exercised correctly). Machiavelli dictated:

“… I say that it may be a good thing to be reputed generous, but, nevertheless, that generosity without the reputation of it is harmful because, though it is worthily and rightly used, still if it is not known, you do not escape the reproach of its opposite vice.” [7]

By putting this issue forward to the G8 instead of minor non-governmental organizations, Harper is making a bigger effort to publicize the image of him being an ideal leader and Canada being a compassionate country.

One thing that is interesting to note with this issue is that reducing the problem of maternal and child mortality is not difficult. [8] It is thus no surprise that Harper has chosen this issue to target - not only will it not require as much effort as other millennium development goals, but because of its critical situation, it will likely provide more reputation for Canada relative to the other goals.

Thus, the role that Harper is proposing for Canada to play will be quite significant and will therefore establish Canada (or maintain its position) as a leading nation in international development. In this case, it appears that Canada is taking a realistic approach to the situation. This is not necessarily intentional as there are many who have genuine intentions of providing relief. However, the fact is that a realistic approach is how Canada became a larger world power. It had never had substantial economic or military positions in the international community, but rather, has always taken on a political/diplomatic and secondary supporting role. Canada’s humanitarian efforts today are a manifestation of this role.

What do you think of the situation, VogueFascinists?

Sources

[1] The Globe and Mail: Aid groups pushed for focus on children at G8

[2] Millennium Development Goal 4 Fact Sheet

[3] Millennium Development Goal 4

[4] Millennium Development Goal 5 Fact Sheet

[5] Millennium Development Goal 5

[6] Haberman, Arthur. The Modern Age: Ideas in Western Civilization. Toronto: Gage Publishing Company, 1987.

[7] Machiavelli, Niccolò. The Prince. 1513. as found in Ed. Burger, Michael. Sources for the History of Western Civilization: Volume II. Peterborough: Broadview Press, 2003.

[8] The Globe and Mail: Maternal mortality: Why it's a crisis

Further Resources

Full Text of Thomas Hobbes' Leviathan (1660)

Full Text of Niccolò Machiavelli’s The Prince (1513)

Abortion

At last, abortion! Since abortion is a very modern issue, I will provide little elaboration as to what it is. However, for those who don’t know, abortion is the prevention of childbirth and the ending of pregnancy. This is done by removing an embryo/fetus (depending on how long the mother’s been pregnant) from the uterus.

With that out of the way, let’s get to the issue at hand. The question we ask ourselves is, “Is abortion right?” There are two general perspectives on this question, either “yes” (pro-choice) or “no” (pro-life). This article will discuss three main points on abortion. Let’s start!

Is abortion morally wrong?

From a pro-life perspective, abortion can be morally wrong for several reasons. Primarily, pro-lifers see abortion as a form of murder which deprives an unborn child of the right to life. This claim is reinforced by a religious perspective, and we all have the rights to our own religious beliefs. Furthermore, even if an embryo/fetus may not be a conscious human being, it still has a genetic and reproductive purpose as a member of the human race.

From a pro-choice perspective, how can abortion be morally wrong if we do not know what exactly an embryo/fetus behaves like? It is clearly unethical to kill other human beings, but can an embryo/fetus be considered a human being? According to Mary Ann Warren and her publication On the Moral and Legal Status of Abortion (1973), a human being must be conscious, self-aware, reasonable, self-motivated, and able to communicate.

How many of these can an unborn child be? The issues of consciousness and perhaps self-awareness are understandable.

However, what of reasoning? One cannot be reasonable without prior experience, so how can a baby reason when it has not been born yet?

What of self-motivation? An unborn child cannot motivate itself to do something if it is neither able to motivate itself nor know what to motivate itself for.

Finally, there is the issue of communication. Although babies can communicate (rather primitively, however), unborn babies do not possess the ability to do so. After all, they have not developed yet.

Is abortion morally wrong? Should women be burdened by something they are unwilling to take on?

For the pro-life perspective, we can simply look at the above response. Remember that killing another human being is immoral/unethical. Thus, abortion of unborn children is unethical and a crime.

From a pro-choice perspective, women have the rights to their own body. Let’s consider the obvious instance of rape, for example. If the woman becomes impregnated during rape and does not want to have a child, why should she? Let us also discuss some elements of eugenics here. How can we know that the genes passed on to the child by the rapist are beneficial and positive? Even if they are, there is no way of telling and the task of child-rearing still remains.

Would we be denying the future of a child by aborting it?

Possibly. This is the neutral point of the debate. It is uncertain to say what kind of future it will have. It has just as much a chance of being a rich human who revolutionized their field as being a simpleton drug dealer in the slums. This relates to the genetic issue. Accidental impregnation from an intellectual contributes to genes just as much as forced impregnation during rape. Finally, take into consideration that, according to The Blank Slate (2002) by Stephen Pinker, behaviour is 40-50% influenced by genes and 50% influenced by society. The home environment with parents is only 0-10% influential. Would you thus risk a child’s future on behalf of genetic chance?

Because it’s a modern issue, abortion is quite serious. Yet, we still do not know if it’s right or wrong. Maybe those who are pro-life should never abort, while those who are pro-choice should abort when they need to. But when we go back to the points above, why should one person be ethical yet allow other people to be unethical? Is that not hypocrisy? And from the other side, why should someone be burdened with such a significant task when they do not want to/cannot take it on? Is that not suppression of freedom (of choice)?

I hope you enjoyed this post. If you have any comments/feedback/suggestions, e-mail me at voguefascin@live.com! I’ll try to respond to all the messages I get if I can.

P.S. In other news, the next poll is now up! The following article will be about one of five economic/political systems again. You are in control of the blog’s direction. Thanks for the support (i.e. votes, comments, & discussion) on the socialism article!

Socialism

At last, the first real article on VogueFascin. You voted for socialism, you got it!

Let’s begin with the basics. Socialism is an economic system. It was established as a response to capitalism, yet is generally confused with Communism. Let me clear this up briefly with one major point.

Socialism and Communism are very similar because socialism is like an underdeveloped Communism. It’s the bridge between capitalism and Communism. It aims to establish the cooperation amongst individuals and the necessary production which Communism requires.

Socialism’s ideology is, “From each according to his ability, to each according to his deeds.” Distribution is done according to quality and quantity of work. As a bridge to Communism, socialism aims to produce as much as possible and promote as much cooperation as possible in order to meet “From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs.”

Further comparison will come in an article after I write about Communism. Let’s return to socialism.

As I mentioned earlier, socialism is where society controls the production. This is the first benefit of socialism – you have an impact on the direction of the economy. The economy can go in the direction the people want, not the government. This democratic concept sounds appealing, but an issue with democracy is that everyone has voting power, even those who are unfit to do so. In socialism, the direction is reached by a consensus. What if those who are deciding are unfit to make a decision? Depending on in which direction the economy would tend towards, the socialist society would either improve or worsen. How would we be able to ensure the progression of the economy in the right direction?

The first benefit connects to the second benefit; all production is done in favour of the common good of society, and not for individual gain. This means that society tends to improve overall when there is production. However, all distribution of wealth is supposed to be equal, so wouldn’t worker incentive be reduced? There would be no competition because the idea is that everyone has equality in terms of wealth and commodities. No competition means a lack of development of technology. How can we equalize incomes and resources while preserving competition for development?

An exception to this, however, is that socialists strive to advance economical technology (or in other words, creating a more diverse/effective economical framework/structure). This is a good benefit, but again, the issue is that there is little balance – too much focus is being placed into economics and not in other areas.

Moving on to the third point: total equality. Everyone has access to an equal portion of resources; everyone has an equal amount of income; etc. This is good, because it eliminates poverty as well as the different classes in society (everyone is treated equally; again, democracy), yet it also eliminates the higher incomes of the former high-class citizens and large industries. This brings the national gross domestic product (GDP) down. We can use some examples for this, mostly Communist ones. That’s fine, since the two economical systems share this same idea anyways.

On average, Communist countries have a low GDP. These statistics were taken from the CIA World Factbook (2008). 

> Cuba: $55,180,000,000.00 USD (#70)

> Laos: $5,187,000,000.00 USD (#140)

> Moldova: $6,197,000,000.00 USD (#138)

> Nepal: $12,640,000,000.00 USD (#121)

> North Korea: $26,200,000,000.00 USD (#89)

> People’s Republic of China: $4,222,000,000,000.00 (#3)

> Vietnam: $90,880,000,000.00 (#61)

Graph 1. A visual representation of the listed figures.

Let’s focus on China – it’s an outlier since it has the third largest GDP in the world. Interestingly enough, China is also a socialist republic, and is only referred to as a Communist state because it is led by the Communist Party of China. It is unmistakeable that China is the world’s largest manufacturer of items – almost everything you buy will have a “Made in China” sticker on it. So it seems that the Chinese have properly managed to apply socialism to their society. Apart from poor living conditions, could China be the prime example of successful socialism?

Returning to the GDP issue, a low GDP impedes a country’s ability to interact with other countries, mostly in terms of commerce, since we are averaging all incomes and production. Now, this creates a sort of paradox. How can we eliminate poverty and promote equality while maintaining a decent GDP?

One a final note, socialism and Communism are usually regarded as the right idea for a prosperous society, but impossible for mankind to master. It is our human nature that prevents the complete, correct execution of socialism. Do you agree with this, or is there something else preventing us from living in a fully economic and equal society?

Although the questions I’ve listed seem impossible to answer, think about answering them. They are meant to stimulate discussion. Feel free and do not hesitate to comment and initiate debates! But remember, no flaming. I will be moderating the discussion.

I hope you enjoyed this post. If you have any comments/feedback/suggestions, e-mail me at voguefascin@live.com! I’ll try to respond to all the messages I get if I can. If there isn't much discussion in the comments or votes in the poll, I will extend the time to two weeks.

P.S. In other news, the next poll is now up! The following article will be about one of five political ideas/issues. Again, you are in control of the blog’s direction. Thanks for all the support (i.e. votes and comments) on the welcoming post. ^^

P.P.S. Because there was no actual logo for socialism, and I wanted to save the Soviet logo for the Communism article, I created my own. I hope you found it somewhat appropriate. If you would like an icon/wallpaper with this logo, e-mail me the resolution you want it in and I’ll send it back.

Welcome! Willkommen! Добро пожаловать!

Welcome to VogueFascin, the place you go to for your latest political trends! I am Z, a very busy student, who decided to begin this project simply out of philosophical interest, but broadened it into wanting to open peoples' minds more and promoting social discussion.

My objective is to give you unbiased reviews of different forms of government, ranging from not only the present day but from when political governments first began to exist. 

Let's do this democratically. I'm going to let you take this blog into the direction you want. There will always be a poll on the right side of the blog with five options, where you can vote on which form of government you'd like me to discuss! As we progress, I'll open up more specific ruling systems like Anarcho-Socialism or Nazism. In the future, I hope to introduce different kinds of discussion, such as general political issues (eg. abortion, eugenics, etc.). Each poll will last about a week, and when it is over, I'll post about whatever you want me to talk about! I'll also create and post some random media from time to time. I sometimes like to spend my time creating new designs of Communist or National Socialist flags. 

Anyone can comment anonymously. Politics play a large role in our everyday lives and so, I've decided to leave all my posts open for discussion. Please do try to respond intellectually - this will definitely improve the quality of the discussion and will have an impact on the outcome. 

If you have any personal comments/questions/suggestions for the blog, don't hesitate to e-mail me at voguefascin@live.com. You can even send your ideas for flag designs! I will try to respond as quickly as possible, but remember, I am very busy. x] 

Dismissed! 

Sincerely, Mit freundlichen Grüßen, С уважением, 
- Z