We Don’t Mind Learning Good Things from Strangers

The Editors received a letter from Anatoly Bebelo, a docent at the Kyiv National Economic University, containing a rather critical assessment of one of the publications by our author and consultant Prof. James Mace. Naturally, the Editors thought it only proper that Dr. Mace should be allocated room for his reply. The result was the following interesting exchange of ideas addressing the political science and political economy. The Editors welcome all interested readers — not only specialists in the fields — to join this discussion and share their ideas relating to the subject.

As a regular and interested reader of this newspaper, I am extending my own, even if a little belated, greetings to all those sincere words and constructive ideas expressed in conjunction with your seventh jubilee.

Being an active consumer of your information product, I feel professionally satisfied with its quite extensive range. Personally, I attach priority to analytical materials relating to various aspects of the socioeconomic and political development of this country, as well as to problems concerning the formation and protection of national identity. I believe that your newspaper, even in the presence, in certain publications, of express anticommunist and latent anti-Russian trends, is one of few periodicals in Ukraine dominated by constructive analytical and critical materials addressing topical socioeconomic, political, philosophic, and cultural problems of the present day.

However, materials sometimes appear which the reader may regard as the proverbial fly in the ointment of the otherwise good cause your edition serves. This is only natural; having many readers means having many opinions. But there are specific materials which, I think, serve to confuse and intellectually disarm your readers. This particular consideration actually compels me to engage in a controversy with this newspaper’s consultant Dr. James Mace.

Within this context, I intend to critically analyze his message of greetings carried by The Day No. 26. As a reader, I reject that manner of imposing on a Ukrainian in the street the author’s understanding of a number of aspects relating to the formation and implementation of the teaching process at Ukrainian universities. First, I consider that his assessment of political economy is an ideologically prejudiced one, indicative of his political bias as an expert political analyst. Thus, Dr. Mace interprets political economy as “dead weight” which “still cripples the intellectual processes in so many other universities” of Ukraine.

Second, I am convinced that sticking political labels should not be practiced in celebration speeches, and nor should lecturing others, even less so the entire people.

What can one say in response to such allegations?

I am aware that for James Mace the political analyst assessments of political economy by noted writers hold little authority. Georges Simenon, for one, predicted that political economy would take the lead among all sciences one day. Mark Twain said that knowledge of political economy was the fundamental principle of skilful government. I agree that these examples are just nice prose. However, let us consider another aspect of Dr. Mace’s interpretation (or misinterpretation) of the problem he raised. Without doubt, even as a political scientist, he has had to study certain aspects of the economic science, so he must be familiar with names such as Alfred Marshall and Paul Samuelson. I would like to quote from them with regard to the subject of our debate, if you will pardon my getting academic. “Political Economy or Economics,” Alfred Marshall writes in his Economics, “is a study of mankind in the ordinary business of life; it examines that part of individual and social action which is most closely connected with the attainment and with the use of the material requisites of well- being.”

Paul Samuelson, 1970 Nobel Prize Winner in Economics, points out that economic theory (commonly known as political economy) is closely connected with other important university subjects, among which he singles out political science.

Naturally, such polarized assessments of political economy belong to researchers being in different intellectual and scientific weight categories. Therefore, the choice of an acceptable viewpoint concerning the understanding of the economic science (political economy) in our debate has no alternative. I am consciously omitting other ideological nuances in interpreting political economy, otherwise one ought to blame those interpreting it and not the science itself.

And the unfounded accusations of Ukrainian schools as practicing “cronyism, favoritism, and outright corruption” are clearly indicative of the author losing all sense of proportion and limits. Also, he does so relying on the ephemeral assessments of his two step-daughters. In other words, few separate facts are used to make a generalization, which is not exactly proper.

From all of Dr. Mace’s deadly accusations of political economy as an academic subject, and of the teaching process at the Ukrainian institutions of higher learning, follows this logical question: What about all those political analysts that were not far removed from offering recommendations and giving assessments with regard to air raids in Yugoslavia and Iraq; what subjects did they study and where? I must admit that I have not read any views on the matter written by the esteemed consultant.

In the context of evaluation of expert political analysts, another question comes to mind: Which of the US political scientists prompted the new Ambassador, Mr. Herbst, to utter one of the first winged phrases, to the effect that US troops will not be deployed on the territory of Ukraine? But maybe he is the author of this wise maxim, so consoling from the point of view of the political science? After all, every diplomat is a political analyst by definition.

Naturally, it would be illogical to consider all such shortcomings as sufficing to condemn the political science as humanistically inferior. The important thing is who understands it and how, as well as how he goes about implementing such knowledge. I am convinced that any sufficiently civilized Ukrainian in the street is always genetically skeptical about “assessments and recommendations” on the part of all kinds of foreign “missionaries and enlighteners” who, as a rule, come here in search of fortune and good posts. We have enough wisdom and inspiration to solve our own problems. Although we do not mind learning things from strangers, provided those are good things.

I wish this newspaper a long and happy journey, also tolerance and mass readership.