"All civilizations decline. That's a fact of history. The cause is -
civilization! The more organized a state become, the more successful.
But, the more successful the state the more affluent elements ascend to
the the top and using their individual power, they steer the government
toward self serving goals that have nothing to do with national
survival. Soon, the civilization becomes top heavy and topples from
sheer elitist lethargy. There is a revolution, the nation crumbles into
chaos and the whole things starts over on a new playing filed. The USA
has achieved all it can and now will fall for reasons stated above. It
is not reparable. It has to go the same way other nations fell. The
world will miss us terribly."
Jim Bass
Comment on Asia Times Online article.
Monday, November 5, 2012
Thursday, November 1, 2012
Modernisation
To Americans, modernisation means Americanisation. To the Chinese, modernisation will likely mean Sinasation. To the Indians it may mean Hinduisation.
It all rather depends on who gets to rise to the top to propagate their ideas through empire.
The term modernisation is, therefore, quite meaningless.
It all rather depends on who gets to rise to the top to propagate their ideas through empire.
The term modernisation is, therefore, quite meaningless.
Monday, October 22, 2012
Empire and Colonialism
I found an interesting article on what a Chinese superpower might look like. The main premise of the article wasn't that illuminating - it was fairly lightweight and quite childlike. What I found interesting however were the comments that betrayed a common worldview here at home:
"China has never colonised any overseas territories. Overseas empires were a European speciality,"
"Europe, I would argue, has historically been an extremely aggressive and expansionist continent."
"Military might, the projection of power around the world, and the desire if necessary by force to impose our way of life on others, have been fundamental to the European story."
"China won't be like this. It is not in its DNA."
"Instead the quintessential forms of Chinese power will be economic and cultural."
I have often been baffled by the odd views of Empire and Colonialism that have become so fashionable among the left. Basically the narrative goes: White Europeans and Americans were racist, exploitative and sought to conquer brown and black people. You get the impression when reading views linked to this narrative (especially on forums and comments pages) that it was the white West that invented Imperialism, Colonialism and exploitation. Indeed, a parallel is often drawn between whites exploiting coloured people, and western industry raping the planet. Capitalism, rather than being a mere form of market exchange, is instead elevated to being an extension of white imperialism. And it's all our fault.
Never having been fashionable, I've long had a hard time swallowing this mickey mouse cartoon version of history, and I remain astonished that people better educated than me glibly believe it. Maybe I'm just a bit thick, because when I look at history itself, I just can't see this strange narrative. As a soft left liberal myself, or at least someone who fits the profile, I find this view absurd.
Let's get a few facts out of the way first. Conquering and exploiting others is not a European invention. China may never have had overseas colonies, but it does indeed have a history of aggressive, military expansion. It's no accident that China is the size it is today, you know. Ask the Vietnamese what they think of the Chinese occupation that they fought against for centuries. Ask the Tibetans. The Mongols expanded (and contracted) a massive overland empire over the world's biggest land mass, ruling China and reaching the boundaries of Europe. The Islamic Empire conquered all of the Middle-East, North Africa, Spain and the Caucasus, finally stopping short of Vienna. And it expanded down the east coast of Africa and would have expanded further into the interior if the Tsetse fly hadn't killed their horses. Having laid the boundaries of Islam, they then set up a vast slave trade in Africa, long before the arrival of the Portugese. The Mughal empire expanded out of Afghanistan and made half of Indians its subjects before Queen Victoria was even born. The Aztecs expanded throughout Central America, conquering and enslaving every tribe it came across - the only reason the conquistadores were able to defeat the Aztecs was because the local tribes allied with them in order to topple their hated overlords.
Colonies are a way of establishing a presence somewhere. If you are the country right next door, then you don't need colonies. The threat of invasion will do just fine, and the subject nation will pay its tribute or give up its mineral wealth to you and not your rivals. If India had been on the Isle of Wight, and if it wasn't threatened by rivals looking to exploit it as well, then Britain wouldn't have had colonies in India at all. There would have been no need to rule it - a puppet ruler, as is traditional, would have done fine.
Prior to Europe's expansion, shipbuilding technology was still poorly developed. Zheng He's fleet, about which we know very little of, was created during the Ming Dynasty's declining years. The ships, we think, may have been impressive. They would certainly have been very expensive. Yet they stuck to conservative routes. And the Chinese Empire, wealthy already from its trade links with the Persian, Mughal and Islamic Empires, saw no benefit in exploring further. It had no need.
Portugal, blocked from the East by the Islamic Empire, had nothing to lose in trying to sail around the tip of Africa. They were attracted to the East by China's wealth. They wanted to trade with it. Their ships were used to the wild Atlantic, and so were tough. It was from there that Spain, Britain and the Netherlands, also facing the Atlantic and perched on what was seen as the 'edge of the world', also developed their maritime links and shipbuilding techniques.
If China had been in Ireland, they too would have done the same.
It was an accident of history that allowed Europeans to take advantage of long range maritime links, just as the technology to do so was emerging. The long distances involved and the lack of communications technology also meant that they had to rely first on garrisoned 'factories' (trading centres), then (when the Mughal empire imploded) on ruling areas that hitherto had been ruled by others. And that's it. It wasn't racism or militarism that produced Europe's domination of much of the world - just the usual human habits combined with lucky timing.
And they are human habits. It's fashionable, for instance, to blame the US's western expansion across America on some arrogant notion of 'Manifest Destiny'. But Manifest Destiny is just a made-up phrase, and nobody seems to know who said it first. Did Russians need that phrase in order to sweep across Siberia, Russia's 'Wild East'? No. They just did it. What the US did against Native Americans (taking their land, for gain, and killing them if they got in the way) was what all growing nations tended to do. The larger American Indian Nations did the same, eradicating smaller tribes as they expanded, and warring against those they couldn't destroy outright.
Will China, if it becomes a superpower, try to base itself overseas? Take a look at the furious row in the South China sea, where China, Japan and South Korea have been rattling sabres over a few uninhabited islands. With modern communications, ships and planes, such places suddenly assume strategic significance (as they did in WW2). This is why, for instance, America has an empire of bases, rather than colonies. Technology has shrunk distances further, so colonies are no longer needed (which is why 17th century European colonies looked obsolete in the 20th century). In the 15th Century, with China at the height of its power, occupying those islands would have made no sense. There was nothing there, they could not dominate the surrounding seas without the invention of radar, artillery or missiles, and a garrison stationed there would have starved to death. Now however, it is a different story, and again, not because of correct or incorrect attitudes, but because of circumstance.
If Chinese strategists see a real need to occupy a piece of land anywhere on this earth, they will pragmatically weigh up the costs and benefits, and if it was to their advantage - and they could get away with it - they would do it. They would not wring their hands in anguish, saying 'but we are not Europeans, it is not in our DNA'.
Chinese people are human people, and humans have always acted in this way, regardless of their skin colour, religion or ideology. To fail to see this is to succomb to the idiotic racialist theories that abounded in the last century - that, somehow, it is race that dictates a people's behaviour.
It is not.
It is circumstance that dictates a people's behaviour.
"China has never colonised any overseas territories. Overseas empires were a European speciality,"
"Europe, I would argue, has historically been an extremely aggressive and expansionist continent."
"Military might, the projection of power around the world, and the desire if necessary by force to impose our way of life on others, have been fundamental to the European story."
"China won't be like this. It is not in its DNA."
"Instead the quintessential forms of Chinese power will be economic and cultural."
I have often been baffled by the odd views of Empire and Colonialism that have become so fashionable among the left. Basically the narrative goes: White Europeans and Americans were racist, exploitative and sought to conquer brown and black people. You get the impression when reading views linked to this narrative (especially on forums and comments pages) that it was the white West that invented Imperialism, Colonialism and exploitation. Indeed, a parallel is often drawn between whites exploiting coloured people, and western industry raping the planet. Capitalism, rather than being a mere form of market exchange, is instead elevated to being an extension of white imperialism. And it's all our fault.
Never having been fashionable, I've long had a hard time swallowing this mickey mouse cartoon version of history, and I remain astonished that people better educated than me glibly believe it. Maybe I'm just a bit thick, because when I look at history itself, I just can't see this strange narrative. As a soft left liberal myself, or at least someone who fits the profile, I find this view absurd.
Let's get a few facts out of the way first. Conquering and exploiting others is not a European invention. China may never have had overseas colonies, but it does indeed have a history of aggressive, military expansion. It's no accident that China is the size it is today, you know. Ask the Vietnamese what they think of the Chinese occupation that they fought against for centuries. Ask the Tibetans. The Mongols expanded (and contracted) a massive overland empire over the world's biggest land mass, ruling China and reaching the boundaries of Europe. The Islamic Empire conquered all of the Middle-East, North Africa, Spain and the Caucasus, finally stopping short of Vienna. And it expanded down the east coast of Africa and would have expanded further into the interior if the Tsetse fly hadn't killed their horses. Having laid the boundaries of Islam, they then set up a vast slave trade in Africa, long before the arrival of the Portugese. The Mughal empire expanded out of Afghanistan and made half of Indians its subjects before Queen Victoria was even born. The Aztecs expanded throughout Central America, conquering and enslaving every tribe it came across - the only reason the conquistadores were able to defeat the Aztecs was because the local tribes allied with them in order to topple their hated overlords.
Colonies are a way of establishing a presence somewhere. If you are the country right next door, then you don't need colonies. The threat of invasion will do just fine, and the subject nation will pay its tribute or give up its mineral wealth to you and not your rivals. If India had been on the Isle of Wight, and if it wasn't threatened by rivals looking to exploit it as well, then Britain wouldn't have had colonies in India at all. There would have been no need to rule it - a puppet ruler, as is traditional, would have done fine.
Prior to Europe's expansion, shipbuilding technology was still poorly developed. Zheng He's fleet, about which we know very little of, was created during the Ming Dynasty's declining years. The ships, we think, may have been impressive. They would certainly have been very expensive. Yet they stuck to conservative routes. And the Chinese Empire, wealthy already from its trade links with the Persian, Mughal and Islamic Empires, saw no benefit in exploring further. It had no need.
Portugal, blocked from the East by the Islamic Empire, had nothing to lose in trying to sail around the tip of Africa. They were attracted to the East by China's wealth. They wanted to trade with it. Their ships were used to the wild Atlantic, and so were tough. It was from there that Spain, Britain and the Netherlands, also facing the Atlantic and perched on what was seen as the 'edge of the world', also developed their maritime links and shipbuilding techniques.
If China had been in Ireland, they too would have done the same.
It was an accident of history that allowed Europeans to take advantage of long range maritime links, just as the technology to do so was emerging. The long distances involved and the lack of communications technology also meant that they had to rely first on garrisoned 'factories' (trading centres), then (when the Mughal empire imploded) on ruling areas that hitherto had been ruled by others. And that's it. It wasn't racism or militarism that produced Europe's domination of much of the world - just the usual human habits combined with lucky timing.
And they are human habits. It's fashionable, for instance, to blame the US's western expansion across America on some arrogant notion of 'Manifest Destiny'. But Manifest Destiny is just a made-up phrase, and nobody seems to know who said it first. Did Russians need that phrase in order to sweep across Siberia, Russia's 'Wild East'? No. They just did it. What the US did against Native Americans (taking their land, for gain, and killing them if they got in the way) was what all growing nations tended to do. The larger American Indian Nations did the same, eradicating smaller tribes as they expanded, and warring against those they couldn't destroy outright.
Will China, if it becomes a superpower, try to base itself overseas? Take a look at the furious row in the South China sea, where China, Japan and South Korea have been rattling sabres over a few uninhabited islands. With modern communications, ships and planes, such places suddenly assume strategic significance (as they did in WW2). This is why, for instance, America has an empire of bases, rather than colonies. Technology has shrunk distances further, so colonies are no longer needed (which is why 17th century European colonies looked obsolete in the 20th century). In the 15th Century, with China at the height of its power, occupying those islands would have made no sense. There was nothing there, they could not dominate the surrounding seas without the invention of radar, artillery or missiles, and a garrison stationed there would have starved to death. Now however, it is a different story, and again, not because of correct or incorrect attitudes, but because of circumstance.
If Chinese strategists see a real need to occupy a piece of land anywhere on this earth, they will pragmatically weigh up the costs and benefits, and if it was to their advantage - and they could get away with it - they would do it. They would not wring their hands in anguish, saying 'but we are not Europeans, it is not in our DNA'.
Chinese people are human people, and humans have always acted in this way, regardless of their skin colour, religion or ideology. To fail to see this is to succomb to the idiotic racialist theories that abounded in the last century - that, somehow, it is race that dictates a people's behaviour.
It is not.
It is circumstance that dictates a people's behaviour.
Wednesday, October 10, 2012
What is history really made of?
"For [Hitler's]
sake a great nation has been willing to overwork itself for six years and then
to fight for two years more, whereas for the commonsense, essentially
hedonistic world-view which Mr Wells puts forward, hardly a human creature is
willing to shed a pint of blood.
"Before you can even talk of world reconstruction, or even of peace, you have got to eliminate Hitler, which means bringing into being a dynamic not necessarily the same as that of the Nazis, but probably quite as unacceptable to "enlightened" and hedonistic people.
"What has kept England on its feet during the past year? In part, no doubt, some vague idea about a better future, but chiefly the atavistic emotion of patriotism, the ingrained feeling of the English-speaking peoples that they are superior to foreigners. For the last twenty years the main object of English left-wing intellectuals has been to break this feeling down, and if they had succeeded, we might be watching the SS men patrolling the London streets at this moment.
"Similarly, why are the Russians fighting like tigers against the German invasion? In part, perhaps, for some half-remembered ideal of Utopian Socialism, but chiefly in defence of Holy Russia (the "sacred soil of the Fatherland", etc etc), which Stalin has revived in an only slightly altered form.
"The energy that actually shapes the world springs from emotions–racial pride, leader-worship, religious belief, love of war–which liberal intellectuals mechanically write off as anachronisms, and which they have usually destroyed so completely in themselves as to have lost all power of action.
George Orwell, 1941, 'Wells, Hitler and the World State'.
"Before you can even talk of world reconstruction, or even of peace, you have got to eliminate Hitler, which means bringing into being a dynamic not necessarily the same as that of the Nazis, but probably quite as unacceptable to "enlightened" and hedonistic people.
"What has kept England on its feet during the past year? In part, no doubt, some vague idea about a better future, but chiefly the atavistic emotion of patriotism, the ingrained feeling of the English-speaking peoples that they are superior to foreigners. For the last twenty years the main object of English left-wing intellectuals has been to break this feeling down, and if they had succeeded, we might be watching the SS men patrolling the London streets at this moment.
"Similarly, why are the Russians fighting like tigers against the German invasion? In part, perhaps, for some half-remembered ideal of Utopian Socialism, but chiefly in defence of Holy Russia (the "sacred soil of the Fatherland", etc etc), which Stalin has revived in an only slightly altered form.
"The energy that actually shapes the world springs from emotions–racial pride, leader-worship, religious belief, love of war–which liberal intellectuals mechanically write off as anachronisms, and which they have usually destroyed so completely in themselves as to have lost all power of action.
George Orwell, 1941, 'Wells, Hitler and the World State'.
Tuesday, October 2, 2012
What is Conservatism?
Conservatism, with regards to our political system, owes its origins to Edmund Burke's insightful and prophetic critique of the French Revolution. Conservatism basically said, don't pin your hopes on magical solutions, throwing away all tradition in favour of everything new. It embodies a wary scepticism of human, and humanity's, ability to always get things right. It urges us not to put all our eggs in one basket, so to speak.
Conservatism, then, urges Moderation. Moderation in progress, in government, in economics, etc.
Or rather, that's what it used to mean, for conservatism, like liberalism and socialism, has been shorn of its roots and changed almost beyond recognition.
In the US, for instance, conservatism means wildly unfettered markets, business without boundaries, and the bombing of Iran.
These are not conservative values.
Today, political philosophies are just convenient colours that one dons in order to have permission to dirty someone else's colours. They are team colours, to be worn in the arena.
One can only wonder at the wisdom of the Romans, who employed competing gangs of colours in the games. The reds and the greens, and their supporters, would fight it out, sometimes in violent street battles.
Politics is not only a substitute for fighting, it is an excuse for fighting, so why bother with complex ideologies that only philosophers understand when you can simply fight for a colour?
Any colour will do as long as you get to metaphorically punch someone's face in.
Conservatism, then, urges Moderation. Moderation in progress, in government, in economics, etc.
Or rather, that's what it used to mean, for conservatism, like liberalism and socialism, has been shorn of its roots and changed almost beyond recognition.
In the US, for instance, conservatism means wildly unfettered markets, business without boundaries, and the bombing of Iran.
These are not conservative values.
Today, political philosophies are just convenient colours that one dons in order to have permission to dirty someone else's colours. They are team colours, to be worn in the arena.
One can only wonder at the wisdom of the Romans, who employed competing gangs of colours in the games. The reds and the greens, and their supporters, would fight it out, sometimes in violent street battles.
Politics is not only a substitute for fighting, it is an excuse for fighting, so why bother with complex ideologies that only philosophers understand when you can simply fight for a colour?
Any colour will do as long as you get to metaphorically punch someone's face in.
Sunday, September 30, 2012
Into the Sunset
I have examined liberalism in this blog, and recently I have mentioned socialism. I should mention that, while a diluted and increasingly warped form of liberalism still exists in modern life (in the West), socialism is but a forlorn looking phantom compared to its old self.
If you are reading this in the US, you may perhaps think that socialism still exists in the UK, or at least in Europe. I cannot speak for continental Europe, but here in the UK socialism is like a small church with a dwindling congregation. There may be some earnest discussion among believers during the coffee morning, but the church roof is leaking and, with the grassroots gone, there is neither the money nor the expertise to fix it.
In fact, if it wasn't for its virulent atheism, British socialism would probably look like the Church of England, also mired in unfashionability and irrelevance.
As it is, both of them can walk hand in hand into the sunset together. Considering that they both sprang from the same root, it would perhaps be a fitting end.
And as conservatism is also a tired ideology preaching in an equally empty and drafty chapel, then maybe they can make it a threesome.
If you are reading this in the US, you may perhaps think that socialism still exists in the UK, or at least in Europe. I cannot speak for continental Europe, but here in the UK socialism is like a small church with a dwindling congregation. There may be some earnest discussion among believers during the coffee morning, but the church roof is leaking and, with the grassroots gone, there is neither the money nor the expertise to fix it.
In fact, if it wasn't for its virulent atheism, British socialism would probably look like the Church of England, also mired in unfashionability and irrelevance.
As it is, both of them can walk hand in hand into the sunset together. Considering that they both sprang from the same root, it would perhaps be a fitting end.
And as conservatism is also a tired ideology preaching in an equally empty and drafty chapel, then maybe they can make it a threesome.
Friday, September 28, 2012
The rule of law
"The point is that the relative freedom which we enjoy depends of public
opinion. The law is no protection. Governments make laws, but whether they are
carried out, and how the police behave, depends on the general temper in the
country. If large numbers of people are interested in freedom of speech, there
will be freedom of speech, even if the law forbids it; if public opinion is
sluggish, inconvenient minorities will be persecuted, even if laws exist to
protect them. The decline in the desire for individual liberty has not been so
sharp as I would have predicted six years ago, when the war was starting, but
still there has been a decline. The notion that certain opinions cannot safely
be allowed a hearing is growing. It is given currency by intellectuals who
confuse the issue by not distinguishing between democratic opposition and open
rebellion, and it is reflected in our growing indifference to tyranny and
injustice abroad. And even those who declare themselves to be in favour of
freedom of opinion generally drop their claim when it is their own adversaries
who are being prosecuted."
George Orwell, 1945, 'Freedom of the Park'.
George Orwell, 1945, 'Freedom of the Park'.
Monday, September 10, 2012
Moral Socialism
As Orwell has implied in the quote I posted before, the concept of Socialism, as a moral good, has more to do with religion than politics.
Indeed, these days politics has more to do with religion than politics. This is possibly due to the decline of Christianity in the West. People turn to something else to believe in, and believe in fervently. Hence politics becoming more fundamentalist and less debatable.
The first political Socialists were Protestant Christians in the English Civil War. The first communists were the Anabaptists in Germany in 1534.
The dream of a classless society, of an end to scarcity, of justice for all, is the same as the dream of the Kingdom of Heaven, or Nirvana. It is a profoundly human dream that has been with us since the beginning of history - we are social animals who wish to rise forever from the pain of nature's limits and social strife.
Paradoxically, within that dream of a classless society is the dream of the collective, of brotherhood (or sisterhood) and the bonding with other humans that, as social creatures, we crave. Bonding requires more than friendship. It requires 'being', a sense of being in a group, like a baby in a womb.
Which brings us to Nationalism. Again, like Socialism (and all the other 'isms') it is a moral, rather than political force. It arouses the passions and inspires sacrifice and martyrdom, among other things.
Clausewitz said that war is politics in another form.
Politics is religion in another form. It all stems from the passions. Reason is used in its arguments, but it is not reason that inspires rallies and demonstrations, and it is not reason that holds a political or religious group together as a band of believers.
Schopenhauer believed that humans were motivated by primal urges, and that Reason was just the clothing used to cover our naked passions when out in public.
He was right.
Indeed, these days politics has more to do with religion than politics. This is possibly due to the decline of Christianity in the West. People turn to something else to believe in, and believe in fervently. Hence politics becoming more fundamentalist and less debatable.
The first political Socialists were Protestant Christians in the English Civil War. The first communists were the Anabaptists in Germany in 1534.
The dream of a classless society, of an end to scarcity, of justice for all, is the same as the dream of the Kingdom of Heaven, or Nirvana. It is a profoundly human dream that has been with us since the beginning of history - we are social animals who wish to rise forever from the pain of nature's limits and social strife.
Paradoxically, within that dream of a classless society is the dream of the collective, of brotherhood (or sisterhood) and the bonding with other humans that, as social creatures, we crave. Bonding requires more than friendship. It requires 'being', a sense of being in a group, like a baby in a womb.
Which brings us to Nationalism. Again, like Socialism (and all the other 'isms') it is a moral, rather than political force. It arouses the passions and inspires sacrifice and martyrdom, among other things.
Clausewitz said that war is politics in another form.
Politics is religion in another form. It all stems from the passions. Reason is used in its arguments, but it is not reason that inspires rallies and demonstrations, and it is not reason that holds a political or religious group together as a band of believers.
Schopenhauer believed that humans were motivated by primal urges, and that Reason was just the clothing used to cover our naked passions when out in public.
He was right.
Tuesday, September 4, 2012
Socialism
"Some apologists try to excuse Marxism by saying that it has "never had a
chance". This is far from the truth. Marxism and the Marxist parties have had
dozens of chances. In Russia, a Marxist party took power. Within a short time
it abandoned Socialism; if not in words, at any rate in the effect of its
actions. In most European nations there were during the last months of the
first world war and the years immediately thereafter, social crises which left
a wide-open door for the Marxist parties: without exception they proved unable
to take and hold power. In a large number of countries–Germany, Denmark,
Norway, Sweden, Austria, England, Australia, New Zealand, Spain,
France–the reformist Marxist parties have administered the governments,
and have uniformly failed to introduce Socialism or make any genuine step
towards Socialism.... These parties have, in practice, at every historical
test–and there have been many–either failed Socialism or abandoned
it. This is the fact which neither the bitterest foe nor the most ardent friend
of Socialism can erase. This fact does not, as some think, prove anything about
the moral quality of the Socialist ideal. But it does constitute unblinkable
evidence that, whatever its moral quality, Socialism is not going to come."
George Orwell, 'James Burnham and the Managerial Revolution'.
George Orwell, 'James Burnham and the Managerial Revolution'.
Saturday, August 25, 2012
How equal? How radical?
It shouldn't surprise me, but it does. This excerpt from the Education Secretary Michael Gove's speech to Brighton College does make me wonder what has happened to the working classes, who flooded into public life after WW2. They've even been kicked out of their own institutions by the upper middle classes, who then claim to speak on their behalf.
It's not just the Socialist Worker's Party that's a sham then.
Excerpt:
"It is remarkable how many of the positions of wealth, influence, celebrity and power in our society are held by individuals who were privately educated.
Around the Cabinet table – a majority – including myself – were privately educated.
Around the Shadow Cabinet table the Deputy Leader, the Shadow Chancellor, the Shadow Business Secretary, the Shadow Olympics Secretary, the Shadow Welsh Secretary and the Shadow Secretary of State for International Development were all educated at independent schools.
On the bench of our supreme court, in the precincts of the bar, in our medical schools and university science faculties, at the helm of FTSE 100 companies
and in the boardrooms of our banks, independent schools are – how can I best put this – handsomely represented.
You might hear some argue that these peaks have been scaled by older alumni of our great independent schools – and things have changed for younger generations.
But I fear that is not so.
Take sport – where by definition the biggest names are in their teens, twenties and thirties.
As Ed Smith, the Tonbridge-educated former England player, and current Times journalist, points out in his wonderful new book “Luck”:
Twenty-five years ago, of the 13 players who represented England on a tour of Pakistan, only one had been to a private school. In contrast, over two thirds of the current team are privately educated. You’re 20 times more likely to go on and play for England if you go to private school rather than state school.
The composition of the England rugby union team and the British Olympic team reveal the same trend.
Of those members of England’s first 15 born in England, more than half were privately educated.
And again, half the UK’s gold medallists at the last Olympics were privately educated, compared with seven per cent of the population.
It’s not just in sport that the new young stars all have old school ties.
It’s in Hollywood, Broadway and on our TV screens.
Hugh Laurie, Dominic West, Damian Lewis, Tom Hiddleston and Eddie Redmayne – all old Etonians.
One almost feels sorry for Benedict Cumberbatch – a lowly Harrovian – and Dan Stevens – heir to Downton Abbey and old boy of Tonbridge – is practically a street urchin in comparison.
If acting is increasingly a stage for public school talent one might have thought that at least comedy or music would be an alternative platform for outsiders.
But then –
Armando Iannucci, David Baddiel, Michael McIntyre, Jack Whitehall, Miles Jupp, Armstrong from Armstrong and Miller and Mitchell from Mitchell and Webb were all privately educated.
2010’s Mercury Music Prize was a battle between privately educated Laura Marling and privately-educated Marcus Mumford.
And from Chris Martin of Coldplay to Tom Chaplin of Keane – popular music is populated by public school boys.
Indeed when Keane were playing last Sunday on the Andrew Marr show everyone in that studio – the band, the presenter and the other guests – Lib Dem peer Matthew Oakeshott, Radio 3 Presenter Clemency Burton-Hill and Sarah Sands, editor of the London Evening Standard - were all privately educated.
Indeed it’s in the media that the public school stranglehold is strongest.
The Chairman of the BBC and its Director-General are public school boys.
And it’s not just the Evening Standard which has a privately-educated editor.
My old paper The Times is edited by an old boy of St Pauls and its sister paper the Sunday Times by an old Bedfordian.
The new editor of the Mail on Sunday is an old Etonian, the editor of the Financial Times is an old Alleynian and the editor of the Guardian is an Old Cranleighan.
Indeed the Guardian has been edited by privately educated men for the last 60 years…
But then many of our most prominent contemporary radical and activist writers are also privately educated.
George Monbiot of the Guardian was at Stowe, Seumas Milne of the Guardian was at Winchester and perhaps the most radical new voice of all --Laurie Penny of the Independent – was educated here at Brighton College."
It's not just the Socialist Worker's Party that's a sham then.
Excerpt:
"It is remarkable how many of the positions of wealth, influence, celebrity and power in our society are held by individuals who were privately educated.
Around the Cabinet table – a majority – including myself – were privately educated.
Around the Shadow Cabinet table the Deputy Leader, the Shadow Chancellor, the Shadow Business Secretary, the Shadow Olympics Secretary, the Shadow Welsh Secretary and the Shadow Secretary of State for International Development were all educated at independent schools.
On the bench of our supreme court, in the precincts of the bar, in our medical schools and university science faculties, at the helm of FTSE 100 companies
and in the boardrooms of our banks, independent schools are – how can I best put this – handsomely represented.
You might hear some argue that these peaks have been scaled by older alumni of our great independent schools – and things have changed for younger generations.
But I fear that is not so.
Take sport – where by definition the biggest names are in their teens, twenties and thirties.
As Ed Smith, the Tonbridge-educated former England player, and current Times journalist, points out in his wonderful new book “Luck”:
Twenty-five years ago, of the 13 players who represented England on a tour of Pakistan, only one had been to a private school. In contrast, over two thirds of the current team are privately educated. You’re 20 times more likely to go on and play for England if you go to private school rather than state school.
The composition of the England rugby union team and the British Olympic team reveal the same trend.
Of those members of England’s first 15 born in England, more than half were privately educated.
And again, half the UK’s gold medallists at the last Olympics were privately educated, compared with seven per cent of the population.
It’s not just in sport that the new young stars all have old school ties.
It’s in Hollywood, Broadway and on our TV screens.
Hugh Laurie, Dominic West, Damian Lewis, Tom Hiddleston and Eddie Redmayne – all old Etonians.
One almost feels sorry for Benedict Cumberbatch – a lowly Harrovian – and Dan Stevens – heir to Downton Abbey and old boy of Tonbridge – is practically a street urchin in comparison.
If acting is increasingly a stage for public school talent one might have thought that at least comedy or music would be an alternative platform for outsiders.
But then –
Armando Iannucci, David Baddiel, Michael McIntyre, Jack Whitehall, Miles Jupp, Armstrong from Armstrong and Miller and Mitchell from Mitchell and Webb were all privately educated.
2010’s Mercury Music Prize was a battle between privately educated Laura Marling and privately-educated Marcus Mumford.
And from Chris Martin of Coldplay to Tom Chaplin of Keane – popular music is populated by public school boys.
Indeed when Keane were playing last Sunday on the Andrew Marr show everyone in that studio – the band, the presenter and the other guests – Lib Dem peer Matthew Oakeshott, Radio 3 Presenter Clemency Burton-Hill and Sarah Sands, editor of the London Evening Standard - were all privately educated.
Indeed it’s in the media that the public school stranglehold is strongest.
The Chairman of the BBC and its Director-General are public school boys.
And it’s not just the Evening Standard which has a privately-educated editor.
My old paper The Times is edited by an old boy of St Pauls and its sister paper the Sunday Times by an old Bedfordian.
The new editor of the Mail on Sunday is an old Etonian, the editor of the Financial Times is an old Alleynian and the editor of the Guardian is an Old Cranleighan.
Indeed the Guardian has been edited by privately educated men for the last 60 years…
But then many of our most prominent contemporary radical and activist writers are also privately educated.
George Monbiot of the Guardian was at Stowe, Seumas Milne of the Guardian was at Winchester and perhaps the most radical new voice of all --Laurie Penny of the Independent – was educated here at Brighton College."
Wednesday, August 22, 2012
This State is mine
"Everyone, atheists, Christian conservatives, feminists, Islamists, even,
yes, many gays and lesbians, seems to want to remake society in their
own image, without regard for anyone elses thoughts or beliefs. We think
only of ourselves and our own little groups. A little consideration
for the other people we share this country with would go a long way."
Comment on American Conservative by Geoff Guth.
Comment on American Conservative by Geoff Guth.
Monday, August 13, 2012
Moral Relativism
I confess that I had some trouble understanding this concept at first. It's not a term used often in UK political debates, though it crops up frequently in US debates in the 'culture wars', usually as an attack on the left, from the right wing of politics, and especially the 'religious right'.
As far as I can see, moral relativism can be linked to the Utilitarian strand of Liberalism, which states that the best way to be is that which benefits the majority, or which is accepted in some way by the majority. All very democratic, as befits the work of John Stuart Mill, who helped popularise Utilitarianism. It means that, in essence, there is no absolute right value. If the majority accepts one value, then it is right. Should the majority change their mind, then so be it, the old value is now wrong and the new value is now right. What matters is not what is right, but what works. It's a philosophy that actually eschews values, or rather, denies that they are set in stone for all time. It says, let the people choose, then go with the flow.
This differs from, say, the moral absolutism of a religion, which declares what is right and what is wrong according to its creed, not according to what the people want. If the people disagree, then they must be converted.
In the Chick-fil-A furore recently, the CEO of the company, in an interview, declared that same-sex marriage was wrong, because of his Christian beliefs. This is moral absolutism. It says same-sex marriage is wrong, regardless of whether it is practised happily in other cultures, or whatever. It is considered wrong, and there is no negotiation possible on the position, even if the same-sex couple are not Christians themselves. It would be wrong anywhere in the world - anywhere in the universe, in fact.
The same stance of moral absolutism is taken by those who criticised the CEO for daring to declare this belief, and who protested against it by boycotting Chick-fil-A and holding protests outside their restaurants. To the protesters, any declaration against same-sex marriage is wrong, and non-negotiable. The fact that it's a long standing Christian doctrine is not accepted as a mitigating factor. The fact that many in the US agree with the stance is not accepted either. It's wrong, and that's that.
Both stances of moral absolutism are examples of intolerance and illiberalism. Both stances are also supportive of monoculturism - with their own culture dominant - rather than multiculturism.
They are also examples of how religions, and civic religions, are formed. All that is required is a set of ideals, and the power to enforce those ideals, with the opposition being soundly defeated.
The 'culture war' is not about relativism versus absolutism. It is a civil war between two diametrically opposed forms of absolutism.
As far as I can see, moral relativism can be linked to the Utilitarian strand of Liberalism, which states that the best way to be is that which benefits the majority, or which is accepted in some way by the majority. All very democratic, as befits the work of John Stuart Mill, who helped popularise Utilitarianism. It means that, in essence, there is no absolute right value. If the majority accepts one value, then it is right. Should the majority change their mind, then so be it, the old value is now wrong and the new value is now right. What matters is not what is right, but what works. It's a philosophy that actually eschews values, or rather, denies that they are set in stone for all time. It says, let the people choose, then go with the flow.
This differs from, say, the moral absolutism of a religion, which declares what is right and what is wrong according to its creed, not according to what the people want. If the people disagree, then they must be converted.
In the Chick-fil-A furore recently, the CEO of the company, in an interview, declared that same-sex marriage was wrong, because of his Christian beliefs. This is moral absolutism. It says same-sex marriage is wrong, regardless of whether it is practised happily in other cultures, or whatever. It is considered wrong, and there is no negotiation possible on the position, even if the same-sex couple are not Christians themselves. It would be wrong anywhere in the world - anywhere in the universe, in fact.
The same stance of moral absolutism is taken by those who criticised the CEO for daring to declare this belief, and who protested against it by boycotting Chick-fil-A and holding protests outside their restaurants. To the protesters, any declaration against same-sex marriage is wrong, and non-negotiable. The fact that it's a long standing Christian doctrine is not accepted as a mitigating factor. The fact that many in the US agree with the stance is not accepted either. It's wrong, and that's that.
Both stances of moral absolutism are examples of intolerance and illiberalism. Both stances are also supportive of monoculturism - with their own culture dominant - rather than multiculturism.
They are also examples of how religions, and civic religions, are formed. All that is required is a set of ideals, and the power to enforce those ideals, with the opposition being soundly defeated.
The 'culture war' is not about relativism versus absolutism. It is a civil war between two diametrically opposed forms of absolutism.
Friday, August 10, 2012
Traditions
"...traditions are never defended. If they need to be defended, the cause is
already lost. Traditions are supported and, if they’re no longer
supported, collapse."
Comment by bjk on The American Conservative.
Comment by bjk on The American Conservative.
It's all about me
Apparently there was once a book published, entitled Everything That Men Know About Women.
Every page was blank.
Ho, ho, ho.
Of course, as a stunt, a book entitled Everything That Women Know About Men would be too expensive to produce.
Every page would be a mirror.
Every page was blank.
Ho, ho, ho.
Of course, as a stunt, a book entitled Everything That Women Know About Men would be too expensive to produce.
Every page would be a mirror.
Friday, August 3, 2012
Syria
It's the truth, man.
What is happening in Syria? Has civil war broken out between the ethnic and religious factions that make up the country, with some factions allying with others, and all trying to gain control of the country? Are Saudi Arabia and Qatar pouring money and arms towards their chosen factions? Is Turkey supplying, and giving safe haven, to one of the factions? Is the UN, under the guise of promoting peace, pushing for resolutions that, coincidentally, favour the factions chosen by the West? Are Jihadi fighters - Sunni mercenaries basically - pouring into Syria from Libya, Saudi Arabia, Jordan and Iraq? Is the most powerful country in the world, along with opportunistic allies, trying to destabilise Syria, and possibly the middle east?
Well apparently not. According to mainstream media like the BBC and Reuters, what is happening in Syria is that 'the people', led by young activists and rebels, are trying to topple a dictatorial regime, which is responding by unleashing its armed forces upon civilians. And massacring them.
Journalism, we are told, is about reporting the truth. Well, no it's not. It's about selling print and air time to customers, and you do that by giving them a narrative. The narrative being sold to us regarding Syria is, like most narratives, a good vs evil one. We like our dualities in the West, and there's always someone to demonise, whether it's Muslims, Jews, Liberals, Bankers, Capitalists, Climate Change Deniers, whatever. There's a narrative to suit every taste. So for your delectation, dear readers, in Syria it's about young hip radicals versus the ruthless, titanic monster dictator.
Remember Libya? Then, it was about Gaddafi versus 'the people'. One evil man and his black mercenaries against the freedom loving people of Libya. They would fight against overwhelming odds, and then celebrate in the streets when victory is won. Like in the movies.
Gaddafi's dead now, and the media couldn't wait to leave the subject behind. They left the country so fast that they left dust trails. The tribal factions involved in the war (not 'the people') carried on fighting anyway, each taking over a piece of the country and sidelining the West's chosen faction. The country may be about to split into two.
But that doesn't align with the narrative, so best not to report it at all. Wouldn't want all those highly paid reporters to look wrong, would we?
The 'Arab Spring' is another example of a narrative that bore little resemblance to reality. Most of our journalists and media commentators appear to be obsessed with the Sixties, because the various revolts were presented to us as youth revolutions shaking the stuffy, conservative dictatorships out of power, and demanding democracy, equality, social justice and freedom of speech. All on twitter and facebook.
The kids are alright, man.
The reality is that, in Tunisia and Egypt, the Islamists took the popular vote, and the nice looking liberals favoured by our journalists were ignored.
When we look at the world, it seems, we see only what we want to see.
So, what is going on in the middle-east?
The ending of the Cold War, that's what.
Jigsaw pieces.
The middle-east as we know it was formed after WW1, when the European powers divided it up among themselves. WW2 shattered this post-Ottoman entity and the European powers, weakened by the war, pulled out.
Into this void came the USSR and USA, claiming their prize as victors of WW2. The middle-east had oil. For Russia it was also a gateway to the Mediterranean and the Indian Ocean, bypassing potential NATO blockading of the Baltic. For NATO, the middle-east was a gateway to Asia, bypassing the Iron Curtain.
In strategic terms a clash was inevitable and the two regimes divided up the region along new lines, changing regimes they couldn't do business with and funding their own proxies generously.
When the Soviet Union imploded, this whole arrangement became obsolete and, for two decades, America dispensed with its odious allies and adopted a policy of impunity, doing whatever it liked and doing it directly, with its own forces.
The background to all this activity however is that, since the fall of the Ottoman Empire, Islamism has bided its time in the region - often repressed, but never eradicated, and always close to its grass roots.
What now?
The Cold War is now over, but, so it seems, is America's attempt at direct hegemony. The debacle in Iraq ended in humiliation and the failure of every single one of its objectives. Islamism, repressed again, survived the attempt to eradicate it and now takes heart from seeing the giant stumble away.
America has switched back to more covert means of meddling. It is also switching its military emphasis towards the Pacific now, with a view to containing its new lukewarm war rival, China. This leaves a vacuum in the middle-east, into which lesser, local powers are rushing into.
Islamism, in all its various and often disconnected guises, has not been wounded by the 'war on terror'. In many ways it has actually been strengthened by it. In the middle-east Islamism is proving to be the soil that everyone must water or fertilise. Anything planted outside of Islamism withers and fails to grow.
America funded Islamism in the Cold War against Russia (just as Germany and Britain did in WW1), then it went to war against Islamism, trying to crush it. Now it tries to crush it in Yemen and Somalia while funding it in Libya and Syria. Time will tell whether this is a good idea or not, but there is little doubt that, as the old map of the middle-east cracks up, Islamism will remain the dominant strand. Whether it becomes moderate or radical will depend on a whole host of unforeseen factors.
Qatar is the new rising power in the middle-east. It sent its special forces operatives and oil dollars into Libya and Syria. It broadcasts the narrative it wants to see on Al-Jazeera, the pseudo-radical news outlet that supports 'democratic revolutions' abroad while remaining quiet about the political situation back home. Is Al-Jazeera a Qatari government tool? Possibly.
Qatar is currently allied to Saudi Arabia. Whether the House of Saud can withstand the coming changes in the region is an open question, even as it actively funds Sunni Islamism. Both nations are actively supported by the same western countries that are targeted by such Islamism - an act of irony that only future historians will fully appreciate.
Iran is being systematically weakened by the West. This is to Qatar's benefit. Iraq however is divided between Sunni and Shia. If Syria falls, then the battleground may return there, with Qatar and the West (perhaps) funding the rise of the Sunnis and the attempt to humble the Shias once more in another attempt to isolate Iran, another historical cycle rich in irony.
If Iran falls or fails, the battle for dominance in the middle-east may well be between Qatar and Turkey, a country recently rebuffed by Europe and now becoming more Islamist and attempting to grow its influence in the region (another historical cycle?).
Russia and China both watch anxiously from the sides, cautiously moving a pawn here or a Go stone there.
And India? Conspicuously absent from much of the region, which might say something about its global diplomatic status - parochial, immature, or both.
Meanwhile, the cauldron of Syria boils, stirred by many new hands.
Who can say what kind of dish will be served up on the menu?
What is happening in Syria? Has civil war broken out between the ethnic and religious factions that make up the country, with some factions allying with others, and all trying to gain control of the country? Are Saudi Arabia and Qatar pouring money and arms towards their chosen factions? Is Turkey supplying, and giving safe haven, to one of the factions? Is the UN, under the guise of promoting peace, pushing for resolutions that, coincidentally, favour the factions chosen by the West? Are Jihadi fighters - Sunni mercenaries basically - pouring into Syria from Libya, Saudi Arabia, Jordan and Iraq? Is the most powerful country in the world, along with opportunistic allies, trying to destabilise Syria, and possibly the middle east?
Well apparently not. According to mainstream media like the BBC and Reuters, what is happening in Syria is that 'the people', led by young activists and rebels, are trying to topple a dictatorial regime, which is responding by unleashing its armed forces upon civilians. And massacring them.
Journalism, we are told, is about reporting the truth. Well, no it's not. It's about selling print and air time to customers, and you do that by giving them a narrative. The narrative being sold to us regarding Syria is, like most narratives, a good vs evil one. We like our dualities in the West, and there's always someone to demonise, whether it's Muslims, Jews, Liberals, Bankers, Capitalists, Climate Change Deniers, whatever. There's a narrative to suit every taste. So for your delectation, dear readers, in Syria it's about young hip radicals versus the ruthless, titanic monster dictator.
Remember Libya? Then, it was about Gaddafi versus 'the people'. One evil man and his black mercenaries against the freedom loving people of Libya. They would fight against overwhelming odds, and then celebrate in the streets when victory is won. Like in the movies.
Gaddafi's dead now, and the media couldn't wait to leave the subject behind. They left the country so fast that they left dust trails. The tribal factions involved in the war (not 'the people') carried on fighting anyway, each taking over a piece of the country and sidelining the West's chosen faction. The country may be about to split into two.
But that doesn't align with the narrative, so best not to report it at all. Wouldn't want all those highly paid reporters to look wrong, would we?
The 'Arab Spring' is another example of a narrative that bore little resemblance to reality. Most of our journalists and media commentators appear to be obsessed with the Sixties, because the various revolts were presented to us as youth revolutions shaking the stuffy, conservative dictatorships out of power, and demanding democracy, equality, social justice and freedom of speech. All on twitter and facebook.
The kids are alright, man.
The reality is that, in Tunisia and Egypt, the Islamists took the popular vote, and the nice looking liberals favoured by our journalists were ignored.
When we look at the world, it seems, we see only what we want to see.
So, what is going on in the middle-east?
The ending of the Cold War, that's what.
Jigsaw pieces.
The middle-east as we know it was formed after WW1, when the European powers divided it up among themselves. WW2 shattered this post-Ottoman entity and the European powers, weakened by the war, pulled out.
Into this void came the USSR and USA, claiming their prize as victors of WW2. The middle-east had oil. For Russia it was also a gateway to the Mediterranean and the Indian Ocean, bypassing potential NATO blockading of the Baltic. For NATO, the middle-east was a gateway to Asia, bypassing the Iron Curtain.
In strategic terms a clash was inevitable and the two regimes divided up the region along new lines, changing regimes they couldn't do business with and funding their own proxies generously.
When the Soviet Union imploded, this whole arrangement became obsolete and, for two decades, America dispensed with its odious allies and adopted a policy of impunity, doing whatever it liked and doing it directly, with its own forces.
The background to all this activity however is that, since the fall of the Ottoman Empire, Islamism has bided its time in the region - often repressed, but never eradicated, and always close to its grass roots.
What now?
The Cold War is now over, but, so it seems, is America's attempt at direct hegemony. The debacle in Iraq ended in humiliation and the failure of every single one of its objectives. Islamism, repressed again, survived the attempt to eradicate it and now takes heart from seeing the giant stumble away.
America has switched back to more covert means of meddling. It is also switching its military emphasis towards the Pacific now, with a view to containing its new lukewarm war rival, China. This leaves a vacuum in the middle-east, into which lesser, local powers are rushing into.
Islamism, in all its various and often disconnected guises, has not been wounded by the 'war on terror'. In many ways it has actually been strengthened by it. In the middle-east Islamism is proving to be the soil that everyone must water or fertilise. Anything planted outside of Islamism withers and fails to grow.
America funded Islamism in the Cold War against Russia (just as Germany and Britain did in WW1), then it went to war against Islamism, trying to crush it. Now it tries to crush it in Yemen and Somalia while funding it in Libya and Syria. Time will tell whether this is a good idea or not, but there is little doubt that, as the old map of the middle-east cracks up, Islamism will remain the dominant strand. Whether it becomes moderate or radical will depend on a whole host of unforeseen factors.
Qatar is the new rising power in the middle-east. It sent its special forces operatives and oil dollars into Libya and Syria. It broadcasts the narrative it wants to see on Al-Jazeera, the pseudo-radical news outlet that supports 'democratic revolutions' abroad while remaining quiet about the political situation back home. Is Al-Jazeera a Qatari government tool? Possibly.
Qatar is currently allied to Saudi Arabia. Whether the House of Saud can withstand the coming changes in the region is an open question, even as it actively funds Sunni Islamism. Both nations are actively supported by the same western countries that are targeted by such Islamism - an act of irony that only future historians will fully appreciate.
Iran is being systematically weakened by the West. This is to Qatar's benefit. Iraq however is divided between Sunni and Shia. If Syria falls, then the battleground may return there, with Qatar and the West (perhaps) funding the rise of the Sunnis and the attempt to humble the Shias once more in another attempt to isolate Iran, another historical cycle rich in irony.
If Iran falls or fails, the battle for dominance in the middle-east may well be between Qatar and Turkey, a country recently rebuffed by Europe and now becoming more Islamist and attempting to grow its influence in the region (another historical cycle?).
Russia and China both watch anxiously from the sides, cautiously moving a pawn here or a Go stone there.
And India? Conspicuously absent from much of the region, which might say something about its global diplomatic status - parochial, immature, or both.
Meanwhile, the cauldron of Syria boils, stirred by many new hands.
Who can say what kind of dish will be served up on the menu?
Sunday, July 22, 2012
Decline and Fall
For his novel Foundation, Isaac Asimov is said to have been inspired by Gibbon's The Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire. Wherever he got his information from, he certainly understood the symptoms of a society in decline, as evinced by this scene in Foundation:
'"We're receding and forgetting, don't you see? Here in the periphery they've lost atomic power. In Gamma Andromeda, a power plant has blown up because of poor repairs, and the Chancellor of the Empire complains that atomic technicians are scarce. And the solution? To train new ones? Never! Instead they're to restrict atomic power."'
That was in 1951. This year, in Britain, after a series of relatively dry winters that have depleted underground aquifers, a couple of months of almost continuous rain has produced frequent flash flooding. First because the ground was too dry to absorb it, then because the ground was too wet to absorb it.
Continuous immigration and urban expansion in the south-east of England has resulted in water shortages and hosepipe bans. Because the infra-structure in place was built by the Victorians and is now out of date, having been unable to keep pace with population needs.
And the solution? To build more reservoirs that can trap and store all that flood water flushing down towards the sea?
No. The chief recommendation is that water meters should be made mandatory in everyone's homes to discourage them from using water.
This is in Britain, an island surrounded by water, and with a temperate, exceedingly damp climate. But current fashions dictate that we treat water as scarce.
This is a minor example of the mindset of decline that Asimov highlighted. Of course he was talking about 'atomic' power, so how does this compare to the ideas surrounding nuclear power today?
Well, nuclear power is being rolled back too. The recent tsunami in Japan and the problems it caused when a nuclear reactor went into meltdown has caused a rethink of nuclear power there, but nuclear power is also being abandoned in Germany, in spite of it having a good safety record there. And France, 100% self sufficient in carbon-free electricity thanks to it's unique and far-sighted nuclear network, is also cutting back, with the incoming President Hollande pledging to cut France's nuclear power generators by half.
Europe has been in decline since 1914. Its greater exposure to the 2008 credit crash - in spite of being more social-democrat and less casino-capitalist than the US - is down to its systemic weakness and its crumbling foundations.
It could also be put down to what could be called a 'decline mindset'.
'"We're receding and forgetting, don't you see? Here in the periphery they've lost atomic power. In Gamma Andromeda, a power plant has blown up because of poor repairs, and the Chancellor of the Empire complains that atomic technicians are scarce. And the solution? To train new ones? Never! Instead they're to restrict atomic power."'
That was in 1951. This year, in Britain, after a series of relatively dry winters that have depleted underground aquifers, a couple of months of almost continuous rain has produced frequent flash flooding. First because the ground was too dry to absorb it, then because the ground was too wet to absorb it.
Continuous immigration and urban expansion in the south-east of England has resulted in water shortages and hosepipe bans. Because the infra-structure in place was built by the Victorians and is now out of date, having been unable to keep pace with population needs.
And the solution? To build more reservoirs that can trap and store all that flood water flushing down towards the sea?
No. The chief recommendation is that water meters should be made mandatory in everyone's homes to discourage them from using water.
This is in Britain, an island surrounded by water, and with a temperate, exceedingly damp climate. But current fashions dictate that we treat water as scarce.
This is a minor example of the mindset of decline that Asimov highlighted. Of course he was talking about 'atomic' power, so how does this compare to the ideas surrounding nuclear power today?
Well, nuclear power is being rolled back too. The recent tsunami in Japan and the problems it caused when a nuclear reactor went into meltdown has caused a rethink of nuclear power there, but nuclear power is also being abandoned in Germany, in spite of it having a good safety record there. And France, 100% self sufficient in carbon-free electricity thanks to it's unique and far-sighted nuclear network, is also cutting back, with the incoming President Hollande pledging to cut France's nuclear power generators by half.
Europe has been in decline since 1914. Its greater exposure to the 2008 credit crash - in spite of being more social-democrat and less casino-capitalist than the US - is down to its systemic weakness and its crumbling foundations.
It could also be put down to what could be called a 'decline mindset'.
Saturday, July 14, 2012
Friday, May 4, 2012
"Sometimes the warlords decide that everything worthy of plunder has been extracted, and that the hitherto rich sources of revenue have dried up. Then they begin the so-called peace process. They convene a meeting of the opposing sides (the 'warring factions conference'), they sign an agreement, and set a date for elections. In response, the World Bank extends to them all manner of loans and credits. Now the warlords are even richer than they were before, because you can get significantly more from the World Bank than from your own starving kinsmen."
Ryszard Kapuscinki - The Shadow of the Sun
Ryszard Kapuscinki - The Shadow of the Sun
Monday, April 16, 2012
Good vs Reason
Gerrard Winstanley once wrote; "Let Reason rule in man and he dares not trespass against his fellow creature, but will do as he would be done unto..."
Gerrard Winstanley died in 1676, but the idea that Reason equates to Goodness comes to us in a long trail from the Ancient Greeks, through early Christianity, then radical Protestant Christianity, on through secular humanism and into modern Atheism, Anarchism, Liberalism and Marxism.
And if you think that Reason's journey looks kind of weird and contradictory, it's because it is. History is nothing if not ironical.
Anyway, it's from there that we've inherited the idea that Reason equals Niceness. From the time of the first philosophers, Reason was held to be a lofty principle, recognised by lofty people. And lofty people are nice people, and believe in nice things, like manners. Hence the term Reasonable.
But Reason has nothing to do with niceness, though it's understandable why its come to be understood this way. Reason, for all its qualifications and pontifications, is just intelligence. Really intelligent people, like philosophers, tend to be softies who don't want to be pushed around by the local brute. So it's no surprise that they should advance their own traits as being better for society and encourage everyone to do the same. It's also where we get nonsense ideas like 'the pen is mightier than the sword' - it's the kind of thing that intellectuals need to believe is true. It lets them feel superior rather than afraid.
To understand why Reason has no moral preference, let's look at one example I've taken from Ioan Grillo's book; El Narco. In this book, which is about drug cartels and the narcotics trade in Mexico today, Grillo interviews a young hitman and reveals a story that's become very familiar now. The hitman grew up in a poor district. His father was an honest man who worked hard to feed his family, but the hours he worked were long, the pay poor and whenever he was unemployed the family struggled to survive. Meanwhile, in the district, the drug gangsters recruited young men for the violent drug trade. Other young men who joined them soon appeared on the streets with lots of cash, nice clothes, a car, a string of girls wanting to make their acquaintance and a reputation of being someone to respect. Now the father didn't want his son to join the drug trade, even though the family were often hungry. He believed in being honest. Inevitably however the son succumbed and eventually became a motorcycle hitman. Compared to what his father did, it was easy work and paid far, far more.
Now lets examine this situation from the point of view of Reason. The father believed in being an upright and honest citizen, even though it meant he could not always provide. The hard manual labour probably meant an early death too. From the son's point of view, if the benefits of becoming a narco outweighed the costs, if in fact he looks at the facts and deduces that the chances of being caught for doing something illegal are low, while the chances of living a more comfortable life are high, is he not employing the higher faculties of Reason in doing so?
And if his father insists, against all the odds, on staying Good, then is his choice not, in fact, irrational?
If I am poor, and you have something nice that I want, and if I calculate that I can take it from you without fear of retribution or even discovery, then by taking it I am being rational.
This kind of thinking is characterised as low cunning, rather than high Reason, but in truth there is no difference at all.
Goodness, virtue, honour - these are nebulous things that can neither be touched nor proven. Like the existence of God in fact. This is why nearly all religions posit them.
If you employ Reason, and only Reason, you will eventually discard that which cannot be seen and respect only the material and the concrete. This is why the Marxists made a big deal about materialism and used their Reason to bash the religions who had brought them Reason in the first place. Liberalism also comes to a similar place with its concept of Utilitarianism, which essentially says that there are no real values anywhere, only advantages.
The idea then that the Rational is good while the Irrational is bad is nonsense.
Good is a nebulous principle. It cannot be measured, seen or felt. Pleasure can be felt, good cannot, though you may feel pleasure in doing good. But good exists only in so far as we make it up. It stands to reason then that, in order to live in the kind of communist grouping that Winstanley is in fact alluding to in the above quote, a certain irrational belief must be accepted among its members.
Good is irrational. Irrationalism is good. Or it can be in some circumstances. A inconvenient fact that was well understood by philosophers right up until recent times (and a lot of ink has been spilt trying to circumnavigate that particular conundrum), but which is ignored or simply not understood by mainstream thinkers (and I use the term loosely) today.
Ryszard Kapuscinski once wrote that, if men were not irrational, would history even exist? Well, if man allowed Reason to rule, then history would be a catalogue of intrigue, plotting, betrayal and calculations.
Which, oddly enough, is almost exactly how it looks like. Especially among the 'reasonable', higher, 'intelligent' classes.
Gerrard Winstanley died in 1676, but the idea that Reason equates to Goodness comes to us in a long trail from the Ancient Greeks, through early Christianity, then radical Protestant Christianity, on through secular humanism and into modern Atheism, Anarchism, Liberalism and Marxism.
And if you think that Reason's journey looks kind of weird and contradictory, it's because it is. History is nothing if not ironical.
Anyway, it's from there that we've inherited the idea that Reason equals Niceness. From the time of the first philosophers, Reason was held to be a lofty principle, recognised by lofty people. And lofty people are nice people, and believe in nice things, like manners. Hence the term Reasonable.
But Reason has nothing to do with niceness, though it's understandable why its come to be understood this way. Reason, for all its qualifications and pontifications, is just intelligence. Really intelligent people, like philosophers, tend to be softies who don't want to be pushed around by the local brute. So it's no surprise that they should advance their own traits as being better for society and encourage everyone to do the same. It's also where we get nonsense ideas like 'the pen is mightier than the sword' - it's the kind of thing that intellectuals need to believe is true. It lets them feel superior rather than afraid.
To understand why Reason has no moral preference, let's look at one example I've taken from Ioan Grillo's book; El Narco. In this book, which is about drug cartels and the narcotics trade in Mexico today, Grillo interviews a young hitman and reveals a story that's become very familiar now. The hitman grew up in a poor district. His father was an honest man who worked hard to feed his family, but the hours he worked were long, the pay poor and whenever he was unemployed the family struggled to survive. Meanwhile, in the district, the drug gangsters recruited young men for the violent drug trade. Other young men who joined them soon appeared on the streets with lots of cash, nice clothes, a car, a string of girls wanting to make their acquaintance and a reputation of being someone to respect. Now the father didn't want his son to join the drug trade, even though the family were often hungry. He believed in being honest. Inevitably however the son succumbed and eventually became a motorcycle hitman. Compared to what his father did, it was easy work and paid far, far more.
Now lets examine this situation from the point of view of Reason. The father believed in being an upright and honest citizen, even though it meant he could not always provide. The hard manual labour probably meant an early death too. From the son's point of view, if the benefits of becoming a narco outweighed the costs, if in fact he looks at the facts and deduces that the chances of being caught for doing something illegal are low, while the chances of living a more comfortable life are high, is he not employing the higher faculties of Reason in doing so?
And if his father insists, against all the odds, on staying Good, then is his choice not, in fact, irrational?
If I am poor, and you have something nice that I want, and if I calculate that I can take it from you without fear of retribution or even discovery, then by taking it I am being rational.
This kind of thinking is characterised as low cunning, rather than high Reason, but in truth there is no difference at all.
Goodness, virtue, honour - these are nebulous things that can neither be touched nor proven. Like the existence of God in fact. This is why nearly all religions posit them.
If you employ Reason, and only Reason, you will eventually discard that which cannot be seen and respect only the material and the concrete. This is why the Marxists made a big deal about materialism and used their Reason to bash the religions who had brought them Reason in the first place. Liberalism also comes to a similar place with its concept of Utilitarianism, which essentially says that there are no real values anywhere, only advantages.
The idea then that the Rational is good while the Irrational is bad is nonsense.
Good is a nebulous principle. It cannot be measured, seen or felt. Pleasure can be felt, good cannot, though you may feel pleasure in doing good. But good exists only in so far as we make it up. It stands to reason then that, in order to live in the kind of communist grouping that Winstanley is in fact alluding to in the above quote, a certain irrational belief must be accepted among its members.
Good is irrational. Irrationalism is good. Or it can be in some circumstances. A inconvenient fact that was well understood by philosophers right up until recent times (and a lot of ink has been spilt trying to circumnavigate that particular conundrum), but which is ignored or simply not understood by mainstream thinkers (and I use the term loosely) today.
Ryszard Kapuscinski once wrote that, if men were not irrational, would history even exist? Well, if man allowed Reason to rule, then history would be a catalogue of intrigue, plotting, betrayal and calculations.
Which, oddly enough, is almost exactly how it looks like. Especially among the 'reasonable', higher, 'intelligent' classes.
Thursday, March 22, 2012
Comrades, pass me the champagne.
The Socialist Workers Party makes me laugh. It's made up almost entirely of students and graduates, and it's run by university lecturers and academics. A worker's party with no workers in it?
It's a Walther Mitty organisation really.
Socialism is just a bourgeois hobby horse these days.
It's a Walther Mitty organisation really.
Socialism is just a bourgeois hobby horse these days.
Tuesday, March 20, 2012
Science Fiction's attitude problem
I'm not dead yet.
Every few years someone in the literary industry asks the question - Is science fiction dying? And in the fanzines and the forums the issue is discussed and agonised over, only to always reach the same conclusion - No it's not.
One would have thought that the constant reappearance of the question itself is a sign that something is not right with the genre, regardless of the constant reassurances from fans and writers. And for those who blame its niche status on its seeming inability to break out into wider acceptance or mass market territory, the solution seems to always be that the readers out there need to recognise just how great science fiction is. This of course is a fan view, and the solution involves marketing, often with the view that publishers are simply not pushing science fiction enough or spending enough money on it.
And then of course there's the view that it's the fault of the masses, who are all dumb Dan Brown readers, and that science fiction is overlooked because it's actually a superior genre. The expectation then is that either the masses convert, or that the Booker Prize Literary establishment desist from their snobbish refusal to open the golden gates to their coveted green pastures and recognise science fiction to be their equal. And the irony of accusing one group of snobbery while looking down on others as inferior goes unnoticed in a genre that adopts an identity of such desperate seriousness that it often resembles caricature.
And yet no one has ever worried about the longevity of science fiction in the movie or game world, where it provides healthy returns year on year. For some reason the angst remains confined to the literary world of science fiction.
The rearguard actions fought within literary science fiction to shore up the walls that, apparently, are not coming down, border on the comical. First there was the desire to show off science fiction's uniqueness. Then there was the desire to widen its definition, calling itself Speculative Fiction, presumably to fend off the accusation of being narrow and irrelevant. From there it was a short step to attempt to drag in every other genre within its lofty confines, with a grab bag of great novels past and present being called speculative, and therefore SF. Suddenlyscience fiction speculative fiction was the grand godfather of all great literature, and shame on you if you didn't know it. George Orwell was an SF author it seems. As was Robert Harris and Tom Clancy. Apparently.
Also dragged into the SF umbrella is the sister genre of Fantasy, in spite of science fiction advocates in the past vociferously denying any connection between the two, though publishers and book sellers begged to differ. The latter won out and we now have the acronym SF & F in marketing. Fantasy of course massively outsells science fiction on all levels, and always has, so if the two are going to be lumped together under one roof, surely SF should become known as Fantasy, rather than Fantasy being known as SF. Because outside the walls of the fan fortress, the average reader sees all science fiction as pure fantasy. And no attempt to macho up SF with the addition of the term Hard Science Fiction appears to be altering that fact.
We are different.
Literary SF has always seen itself as exceptional, with advocates claiming that it is important because it explores the future. Concepts are seen as more important than plot. Fans have written that they want to see 'new ideas', or often just new gadgets. Wafer thin characterisation and dull plots aren't seen as much of a problem by 'proper' SF fans therefore.
Movie and game versions of science fiction however (and their book spin-offs) tend more towards the pure entertainment side of the spectrum. They embrace the simple desires of the masses, who want fun and thrills.
Literary SF's sense of exceptionalism lends itself to elitism. Elites often see themselves as leading the way and setting the trends. There is undeniably an intelligence involved in elitism, but co-existing with that is snobbery and a disconnect from the masses. This disconnect often leaves elites slow or unable to adapt to change, for elites believe that they create their own reality and thus ignore or fail to see larger or deeper trends that can leave them stranded, or simply extinct.
The movie and game versions of science fiction, in embracing the desires of the masses, tend to be more democratic as a result and, rather ironically, tend to birth the trends that literary SF then needs to adapt to. Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep did not really change much in the genre, in spite of being much lauded. The movie version Bladerunner on the other hand, with its more traditional, character based plotting, did, and was thus a massive influence on science fiction.
In the ghetto.
The hardcore of science fiction, whilst bemoaning its siege status, has often looked upon its fortress walls with pride. Outsiders to the SF bunker are known as mundanes. Or simply derided as idiots. Science fiction novels that simply want to be entertaining are dismissed as mere tricked out fantasy. Movie and game science fiction is belittled as mere 'sci-fi', with the label being seen as a term of dumbed down ignorance. Authors from outside who dare to write a science fiction novel are criticised for not being well versed enough in the SF canon of venerated tropes. Insiders meanwhile claim that a lifetime's reading of SF gives them a superior perspective that allows them to assess events in the real world with greater percipience.
Hardcore advocates see themselves as enlightened, either defending themselves from the unenlightened or feeling honour bound to preach to them. The echo of their own voices from the fortress walls becomes a form of adulation that confirms their convictions.
And meanwhile science fiction sales fall and science fiction publishing opportunities dwindle.
So what?
Being niche isn't a problem if there are enough fans within it to create demand for what's already being written. Science fiction is just one genre among many and there's no suggestion that there isn't room for them all.
It only becomes a problem if one desires science fiction to grace the fiction best selling lists with the same frequency as the other genres, something that is more of a problem in the UK than in the US, where the market appears to be a little more diverse.
A sense of entitlement will get science fiction nowhere, because nobody is listening. Readers are not stupid. They know what they want. Give a few of them what they want and you have a small clique. Give many of them what they want and you have a mass market. It really is as simple as that. Wanting a prize for being different however is just illogical, especially if the prize givers are those whom you loudly proclaim to be morons.
Literary genres such as Westerns or Second World War adventures have disappeared. No genre is so precious that it can be considered immortal. Science fiction may never again be as great as it was during its golden years. But if it wants to survive at all, the first step should be for it to remember one important and frequently overlooked point: that, for all its pretensions and prognostications, it is just fiction.
And there's nothing wrong with being just fiction.
But if that isn't self-important enough, the earnest types should perhaps consider religion or politics.
Every few years someone in the literary industry asks the question - Is science fiction dying? And in the fanzines and the forums the issue is discussed and agonised over, only to always reach the same conclusion - No it's not.
One would have thought that the constant reappearance of the question itself is a sign that something is not right with the genre, regardless of the constant reassurances from fans and writers. And for those who blame its niche status on its seeming inability to break out into wider acceptance or mass market territory, the solution seems to always be that the readers out there need to recognise just how great science fiction is. This of course is a fan view, and the solution involves marketing, often with the view that publishers are simply not pushing science fiction enough or spending enough money on it.
And then of course there's the view that it's the fault of the masses, who are all dumb Dan Brown readers, and that science fiction is overlooked because it's actually a superior genre. The expectation then is that either the masses convert, or that the Booker Prize Literary establishment desist from their snobbish refusal to open the golden gates to their coveted green pastures and recognise science fiction to be their equal. And the irony of accusing one group of snobbery while looking down on others as inferior goes unnoticed in a genre that adopts an identity of such desperate seriousness that it often resembles caricature.
And yet no one has ever worried about the longevity of science fiction in the movie or game world, where it provides healthy returns year on year. For some reason the angst remains confined to the literary world of science fiction.
The rearguard actions fought within literary science fiction to shore up the walls that, apparently, are not coming down, border on the comical. First there was the desire to show off science fiction's uniqueness. Then there was the desire to widen its definition, calling itself Speculative Fiction, presumably to fend off the accusation of being narrow and irrelevant. From there it was a short step to attempt to drag in every other genre within its lofty confines, with a grab bag of great novels past and present being called speculative, and therefore SF. Suddenly
Also dragged into the SF umbrella is the sister genre of Fantasy, in spite of science fiction advocates in the past vociferously denying any connection between the two, though publishers and book sellers begged to differ. The latter won out and we now have the acronym SF & F in marketing. Fantasy of course massively outsells science fiction on all levels, and always has, so if the two are going to be lumped together under one roof, surely SF should become known as Fantasy, rather than Fantasy being known as SF. Because outside the walls of the fan fortress, the average reader sees all science fiction as pure fantasy. And no attempt to macho up SF with the addition of the term Hard Science Fiction appears to be altering that fact.
We are different.
Literary SF has always seen itself as exceptional, with advocates claiming that it is important because it explores the future. Concepts are seen as more important than plot. Fans have written that they want to see 'new ideas', or often just new gadgets. Wafer thin characterisation and dull plots aren't seen as much of a problem by 'proper' SF fans therefore.
Movie and game versions of science fiction however (and their book spin-offs) tend more towards the pure entertainment side of the spectrum. They embrace the simple desires of the masses, who want fun and thrills.
Literary SF's sense of exceptionalism lends itself to elitism. Elites often see themselves as leading the way and setting the trends. There is undeniably an intelligence involved in elitism, but co-existing with that is snobbery and a disconnect from the masses. This disconnect often leaves elites slow or unable to adapt to change, for elites believe that they create their own reality and thus ignore or fail to see larger or deeper trends that can leave them stranded, or simply extinct.
The movie and game versions of science fiction, in embracing the desires of the masses, tend to be more democratic as a result and, rather ironically, tend to birth the trends that literary SF then needs to adapt to. Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep did not really change much in the genre, in spite of being much lauded. The movie version Bladerunner on the other hand, with its more traditional, character based plotting, did, and was thus a massive influence on science fiction.
In the ghetto.
The hardcore of science fiction, whilst bemoaning its siege status, has often looked upon its fortress walls with pride. Outsiders to the SF bunker are known as mundanes. Or simply derided as idiots. Science fiction novels that simply want to be entertaining are dismissed as mere tricked out fantasy. Movie and game science fiction is belittled as mere 'sci-fi', with the label being seen as a term of dumbed down ignorance. Authors from outside who dare to write a science fiction novel are criticised for not being well versed enough in the SF canon of venerated tropes. Insiders meanwhile claim that a lifetime's reading of SF gives them a superior perspective that allows them to assess events in the real world with greater percipience.
Hardcore advocates see themselves as enlightened, either defending themselves from the unenlightened or feeling honour bound to preach to them. The echo of their own voices from the fortress walls becomes a form of adulation that confirms their convictions.
And meanwhile science fiction sales fall and science fiction publishing opportunities dwindle.
So what?
Being niche isn't a problem if there are enough fans within it to create demand for what's already being written. Science fiction is just one genre among many and there's no suggestion that there isn't room for them all.
It only becomes a problem if one desires science fiction to grace the fiction best selling lists with the same frequency as the other genres, something that is more of a problem in the UK than in the US, where the market appears to be a little more diverse.
A sense of entitlement will get science fiction nowhere, because nobody is listening. Readers are not stupid. They know what they want. Give a few of them what they want and you have a small clique. Give many of them what they want and you have a mass market. It really is as simple as that. Wanting a prize for being different however is just illogical, especially if the prize givers are those whom you loudly proclaim to be morons.
Literary genres such as Westerns or Second World War adventures have disappeared. No genre is so precious that it can be considered immortal. Science fiction may never again be as great as it was during its golden years. But if it wants to survive at all, the first step should be for it to remember one important and frequently overlooked point: that, for all its pretensions and prognostications, it is just fiction.
And there's nothing wrong with being just fiction.
But if that isn't self-important enough, the earnest types should perhaps consider religion or politics.
Sunday, March 18, 2012
The gap between the rich and the poor.
The gap between the rich and the poor is supposed to be getting bigger. Guardian and BBC types frequently point to the sky high earnings of city fat cats compared to the scrapings of the underclass.
There will be trouble and social schism they say, often aligning themselves on the side of the poor against the rich, sometimes even imagining themselves to be part of the masses. Social commentators in the Guardian still cheer or quietly support the agitations of the downtrodden. Some see themselves as 'the workers' on the simplistic basis that 'anyone who works is a worker'. Some look forward to a day of reckoning for the rich.
They ought to be careful what they wish for.
The rich are a tiny minority in this country. To most people they are fairly invisible. How many people have seen a millionaire in their average week? The majority of people around the country are unlikely to come across one in their entire lives. Except on the TV.
The underclass, though much talked about, is also fairly invisible. Very few people are aware of conditions in some estates, or see what police and social workers see everyday. The underclass are fragmented and tend to live in small ghettos. Society is able to ignore their problems, or ignore them as a problem, or romanticise them and their problems, because they remain confined to specific areas, from which they rarely venture far from. And as a percentage of the country's population, they are a tiny proportion of the whole.
There is another category of 'rich' person however who is very visible in everyday life. They live in fairly nice houses. They drive fairly nice cars. They wear fairly nice clothes and have fairly nice gadgets. They go on fairly nice holidays. They are the upper middle class - the occupiers of the overlapping circles of the Guardian and the BBC, as well as Channel 4, the Telegraph and the Times. People who don't actually think of themselves as rich and who are mostly unaware that they are on the other side of a line that divides them from another, poorer group - the lower middle class.
The story of who the middle class is these days in Britain is the story of how the working class fractured and apparently disappeared. It was the decline of manufacturing and the start of the credit boom in the eighties that destroyed the working class. Those who couldn't adapt fell down to become the underclass. Those who could grabbed the credit and stepped up to become the lower middle class - skilled tradesmen who suddenly got to live in semis, drive more than one car that wasn't knackered and go on holiday abroad far more frequently than their parents ever managed.
Those who used to be called the middle class were nudged upwards to become the upper middle class.
This is why New Labour moved to the middle. There was nowhere else to go.
Modeling themselves on the US, the majority of people began to identify themselves as middle class. The 'new' middle class became the majority, taking over from the working class. Middle class sensibilities became the norm, no longer challenged by cruder and less politically correct working class ones. The upper middle class, whether they recognised it or not, were the elite - evangelists for the moral narrative of the country: a distinct brand of soft left liberalism. Which is why the Conservatives increasingly embraced a softer, more liberal conservatism. They had no choice.
And the dividing line between the upper and lower middle classes? A university education. The same line that divided the old working classes from the middle classes. A degree remains the gateway to the higher paying careers. The jobs below that line are nowhere near the same level. And surprisingly, given the meritocratic rise of the past forty years, that line is hardening. A teaching assistant earns a lot less than a teacher. Without a degree, it will soon be impossible for a vocationally qualified teaching assistant to become a teacher. And that's just one example. Throughout the spectrum the lower middle classes will find that the upper middle classes have pulled the ladder up.
Lower middle class lifestyles have only been sustained by credit. There has been no massive revolution in manufacturing innovation or a sustained growth in GDP to fuel the affluence of the masses. Massive inflows of investment cash from a surging East Asia since the eighties has allowed more money to slosh about the investment system. Banks felt able to dish it out even to high risk categories. Credit cards used to be jealously hoarded by banks. By the nineties they were simply giving them away. It was the inflow of money and our enjoyment of it that caused the credit bubble. Its burst was inevitable.
Credit is now being squeezed and this means big problems for the lower middle class. It's their debts that are now a burden. It's their lifestyle that is suffering as they fail to afford the things that they'd only just started to take for granted. The credit boom may not come back and they will discover that their new found wealth was not built on solid ground. They will slide.
The growing gap between the rich and the poor is actually between the upper middle class and the lower middle class.
And if the lower middle class fall out of their middle class lifestyles, will they become the working class again? No, because the industry that gave the working class their identity is gone. In the 'information age', in a service economy, the working class has become the servant class, feeding burgers to, tending the material possessions of and minding the children of the better off. They won't see the upper middle classes as 'one of them'. And they will come to resent them, their culture and their attitude. And their liberal moral stance.
Upper middle class types who have preached egalitarianism have recently stoked up the flames of class war in their desire to 'bash the bankers'. They should be very careful about how they fan those flames. They might find that they are standing on petrol-soaked firewood.
There will be trouble and social schism they say, often aligning themselves on the side of the poor against the rich, sometimes even imagining themselves to be part of the masses. Social commentators in the Guardian still cheer or quietly support the agitations of the downtrodden. Some see themselves as 'the workers' on the simplistic basis that 'anyone who works is a worker'. Some look forward to a day of reckoning for the rich.
They ought to be careful what they wish for.
The rich are a tiny minority in this country. To most people they are fairly invisible. How many people have seen a millionaire in their average week? The majority of people around the country are unlikely to come across one in their entire lives. Except on the TV.
The underclass, though much talked about, is also fairly invisible. Very few people are aware of conditions in some estates, or see what police and social workers see everyday. The underclass are fragmented and tend to live in small ghettos. Society is able to ignore their problems, or ignore them as a problem, or romanticise them and their problems, because they remain confined to specific areas, from which they rarely venture far from. And as a percentage of the country's population, they are a tiny proportion of the whole.
There is another category of 'rich' person however who is very visible in everyday life. They live in fairly nice houses. They drive fairly nice cars. They wear fairly nice clothes and have fairly nice gadgets. They go on fairly nice holidays. They are the upper middle class - the occupiers of the overlapping circles of the Guardian and the BBC, as well as Channel 4, the Telegraph and the Times. People who don't actually think of themselves as rich and who are mostly unaware that they are on the other side of a line that divides them from another, poorer group - the lower middle class.
The story of who the middle class is these days in Britain is the story of how the working class fractured and apparently disappeared. It was the decline of manufacturing and the start of the credit boom in the eighties that destroyed the working class. Those who couldn't adapt fell down to become the underclass. Those who could grabbed the credit and stepped up to become the lower middle class - skilled tradesmen who suddenly got to live in semis, drive more than one car that wasn't knackered and go on holiday abroad far more frequently than their parents ever managed.
Those who used to be called the middle class were nudged upwards to become the upper middle class.
This is why New Labour moved to the middle. There was nowhere else to go.
Modeling themselves on the US, the majority of people began to identify themselves as middle class. The 'new' middle class became the majority, taking over from the working class. Middle class sensibilities became the norm, no longer challenged by cruder and less politically correct working class ones. The upper middle class, whether they recognised it or not, were the elite - evangelists for the moral narrative of the country: a distinct brand of soft left liberalism. Which is why the Conservatives increasingly embraced a softer, more liberal conservatism. They had no choice.
And the dividing line between the upper and lower middle classes? A university education. The same line that divided the old working classes from the middle classes. A degree remains the gateway to the higher paying careers. The jobs below that line are nowhere near the same level. And surprisingly, given the meritocratic rise of the past forty years, that line is hardening. A teaching assistant earns a lot less than a teacher. Without a degree, it will soon be impossible for a vocationally qualified teaching assistant to become a teacher. And that's just one example. Throughout the spectrum the lower middle classes will find that the upper middle classes have pulled the ladder up.
Lower middle class lifestyles have only been sustained by credit. There has been no massive revolution in manufacturing innovation or a sustained growth in GDP to fuel the affluence of the masses. Massive inflows of investment cash from a surging East Asia since the eighties has allowed more money to slosh about the investment system. Banks felt able to dish it out even to high risk categories. Credit cards used to be jealously hoarded by banks. By the nineties they were simply giving them away. It was the inflow of money and our enjoyment of it that caused the credit bubble. Its burst was inevitable.
Credit is now being squeezed and this means big problems for the lower middle class. It's their debts that are now a burden. It's their lifestyle that is suffering as they fail to afford the things that they'd only just started to take for granted. The credit boom may not come back and they will discover that their new found wealth was not built on solid ground. They will slide.
The growing gap between the rich and the poor is actually between the upper middle class and the lower middle class.
And if the lower middle class fall out of their middle class lifestyles, will they become the working class again? No, because the industry that gave the working class their identity is gone. In the 'information age', in a service economy, the working class has become the servant class, feeding burgers to, tending the material possessions of and minding the children of the better off. They won't see the upper middle classes as 'one of them'. And they will come to resent them, their culture and their attitude. And their liberal moral stance.
Upper middle class types who have preached egalitarianism have recently stoked up the flames of class war in their desire to 'bash the bankers'. They should be very careful about how they fan those flames. They might find that they are standing on petrol-soaked firewood.
Monday, March 12, 2012
The politics of Accretion
Accretion is the process by which the planets in our solar system formed. When the sun was born, all the left over bits were left spinning around it. Gradually these bits started to clump together. As the formed bodies got bigger, their gravitational mass increased, drawing in more bits and making the mass bigger still until, eventually, a planet was formed that had hoovered up most of the fragments in its orbital path around the sun.
This is why every planet has it's own orbital path.
The Asteroid Belt is an example of what all the planet forming bits look like - the process of accretion was prevented from taking its course here by the disruptive influence of Jupiter's gravity.
The theory of Accretion also works well in the description of the business world. Out of a starting mass of tiny companies, bigger companies start to form, sucking in and taking over smaller failing companies until they grow to the size of corporations. The market is then dominated by a few corporations rather than a gigantic mass of small independent companies all with equal clout.
We've seen this in western business culture that began in the 17th and 18th centuries. And we've seen it recently with the Internet boom.
The Internet was supposed to democratize everything. Ordinary people would have the ability to start up their own venture on the net. Mass ingenuity would outmanoeuvre the less nimble big corporations. The dot.com boom was the result. Yet in just one decade (rather than the centuries needed in older business) most of the startups went to the wall or were bought out, and we now have the giant Googles, Amazons, etc. We start out with a clean slate, and the process of accretion happens regardless.
Capitalism starts out with lots of lizards and ends up with a few dinosaurs taking over.
Socialism simply dispenses with the lizards and replaces them with just one dinosaur.
The process of accretion has also occurred in the history of societies.
Humanity began as hunter-gatherer Bands. Lots of them. And they travelled, and frequently fought (be under no illusion about this last point, the evidence is very clear). Tribes then formed, which were simply groups of bands uniting under one chieftain. There was nothing voluntary about this 'uniting' however. The chieftain was part of an aristocratic elite and the bands were subdued.
Tribes, often united by an elite, a language and sometimes a religion, grew bigger. Failing tribes were conquered or broken up, their fragments sucked in by the larger tribes. The remaining tribes fought amongst each other until one emerged victorious, subduing the others and becoming the ruling elite of a much larger entity that we now call Nations.
Accretion is not the result of 'Will', or the desire to co-operate. It occurs by gravitational force. Or simply force.
One day the world may be run as one complete, indivisible entity, with one world government. But it won't be because all the nation states chose to co-operate and voluntarily subordinate themselves. It will be because one state militarily, economically or culturally - or all three - conquered all the others and made them agree to become vassals.
Are we near that condition now?
No. The UN is, like the EU, mostly voluntary, and therefore doomed to disappear under its own flabby irrelevance. The US, while more powerful than any state in history, shows us that it will take a lot more to subdue the entire world. The process of accretion continues.
Unlike in space however, accretion in business and in governments is accompanied by the constant re-breaking up and re-moulding of entities at periodic intervals.
Whether it was Persia, Rome, Ottoman or Spain, the old dinosaurs were broken back into lizards, only to reconstitute bigger dinosaurs elsewhere.
Looking at history and at all of contemporary world politics, there is absolutely no evidence - not one crumb - to suggest that this will not continue.
This is why every planet has it's own orbital path.
The Asteroid Belt is an example of what all the planet forming bits look like - the process of accretion was prevented from taking its course here by the disruptive influence of Jupiter's gravity.
The theory of Accretion also works well in the description of the business world. Out of a starting mass of tiny companies, bigger companies start to form, sucking in and taking over smaller failing companies until they grow to the size of corporations. The market is then dominated by a few corporations rather than a gigantic mass of small independent companies all with equal clout.
We've seen this in western business culture that began in the 17th and 18th centuries. And we've seen it recently with the Internet boom.
The Internet was supposed to democratize everything. Ordinary people would have the ability to start up their own venture on the net. Mass ingenuity would outmanoeuvre the less nimble big corporations. The dot.com boom was the result. Yet in just one decade (rather than the centuries needed in older business) most of the startups went to the wall or were bought out, and we now have the giant Googles, Amazons, etc. We start out with a clean slate, and the process of accretion happens regardless.
Capitalism starts out with lots of lizards and ends up with a few dinosaurs taking over.
Socialism simply dispenses with the lizards and replaces them with just one dinosaur.
The process of accretion has also occurred in the history of societies.
Humanity began as hunter-gatherer Bands. Lots of them. And they travelled, and frequently fought (be under no illusion about this last point, the evidence is very clear). Tribes then formed, which were simply groups of bands uniting under one chieftain. There was nothing voluntary about this 'uniting' however. The chieftain was part of an aristocratic elite and the bands were subdued.
Tribes, often united by an elite, a language and sometimes a religion, grew bigger. Failing tribes were conquered or broken up, their fragments sucked in by the larger tribes. The remaining tribes fought amongst each other until one emerged victorious, subduing the others and becoming the ruling elite of a much larger entity that we now call Nations.
Accretion is not the result of 'Will', or the desire to co-operate. It occurs by gravitational force. Or simply force.
One day the world may be run as one complete, indivisible entity, with one world government. But it won't be because all the nation states chose to co-operate and voluntarily subordinate themselves. It will be because one state militarily, economically or culturally - or all three - conquered all the others and made them agree to become vassals.
Are we near that condition now?
No. The UN is, like the EU, mostly voluntary, and therefore doomed to disappear under its own flabby irrelevance. The US, while more powerful than any state in history, shows us that it will take a lot more to subdue the entire world. The process of accretion continues.
Unlike in space however, accretion in business and in governments is accompanied by the constant re-breaking up and re-moulding of entities at periodic intervals.
Whether it was Persia, Rome, Ottoman or Spain, the old dinosaurs were broken back into lizards, only to reconstitute bigger dinosaurs elsewhere.
Looking at history and at all of contemporary world politics, there is absolutely no evidence - not one crumb - to suggest that this will not continue.
Friday, March 9, 2012
Nearly reasonable
"The real trouble with this world of ours is not that it is an unreasonable world, nor even that it is a reasonable one. The commonest kind of trouble is that it is nearly reasonable, but not quite."
G.K. Chesterton. 1908.
G.K. Chesterton. 1908.
Thursday, March 8, 2012
Reason redux
In the US, the American Atheists organisation is busy promoting its beliefs in an attempt to fight off the perceived influence of the religious Right. Various atheist and humanist groups will stage a 'Reason Rally' in Washington DC on March 24th.
Instead of worshiping God, they prefer to worship Reason.
This idea that Reason should be venerated as the path to truth is becoming something of a parody. Sherlock Holmes embodies this parody perfectly, with his demonstration that deductive thinking (the hallmark of Reason) would solve any mystery. It was a compelling vision, and a great story, but too many people seem to forget that Holmes was a fantasy figure. Ask any detective.
In Star Trek Spock became the post-war embodiment of Reason in action, with his inelegant and decidedly wooden invocation of deductive thinking. Fans seem blissfully unaware that Spock was a clumsy parody of a parody.
The idea that one can reach a solution entirely in one's head promotes the idea of magical thinking - that simply by a process of deduction and will, and a po-faced manner, one can cut through the chaos and confusion and create order and understanding and, ultimately, harmony.
The post-modern embodiment of this idea currently is Yoda. The journey from Sherlock Holmes to Yoda indicates the slippery slope that a worship of Reason entails.
Reason is just thought. To say that an idea is reasonable is to say that it sounds great, but it remains untested.
It is the testing that uncovers the truth, not the idea. Humanists today risk turning Reason into a superstition.
Instead of worshiping God, they prefer to worship Reason.
This idea that Reason should be venerated as the path to truth is becoming something of a parody. Sherlock Holmes embodies this parody perfectly, with his demonstration that deductive thinking (the hallmark of Reason) would solve any mystery. It was a compelling vision, and a great story, but too many people seem to forget that Holmes was a fantasy figure. Ask any detective.
In Star Trek Spock became the post-war embodiment of Reason in action, with his inelegant and decidedly wooden invocation of deductive thinking. Fans seem blissfully unaware that Spock was a clumsy parody of a parody.
The idea that one can reach a solution entirely in one's head promotes the idea of magical thinking - that simply by a process of deduction and will, and a po-faced manner, one can cut through the chaos and confusion and create order and understanding and, ultimately, harmony.
The post-modern embodiment of this idea currently is Yoda. The journey from Sherlock Holmes to Yoda indicates the slippery slope that a worship of Reason entails.
Reason is just thought. To say that an idea is reasonable is to say that it sounds great, but it remains untested.
It is the testing that uncovers the truth, not the idea. Humanists today risk turning Reason into a superstition.
Friday, January 13, 2012
Science versus Reason
Ideologies are exactly like Religions. They are both rationalist. They rationalise their perceived realities. Rationality and Reason are, in fact, simply methods of persuasion. Once persuaded, you are then meant to believe.
Ideologies argue the same way Theologies argued. And both sought to persuade large groups of followers to join them by the power of persuasion.
Science is different. It does not rely on Reason, as many mistakenly believe. It is empirical. It relies on evidence. The force of your argument, no matter how reasonable or logical, means nothing. Only evidence does. Without evidence, any argument is only a theory, and thus not allowed to be called fact, or reality.
The Ideologies of today that pit science against religions, and who claim to align themselves on the side of science and progress because they trumpet rational thinking are completely missing the point.
They are in fact engaging in Sophistry. Which is the ancient art of persuasion through Reason.
This is why sophistry is often equated with lying. Because it frequently is. Reason is no more likely to be truthful than irrationality.
Reason belongs in the realm of politics, not science.
Ideologies argue the same way Theologies argued. And both sought to persuade large groups of followers to join them by the power of persuasion.
Science is different. It does not rely on Reason, as many mistakenly believe. It is empirical. It relies on evidence. The force of your argument, no matter how reasonable or logical, means nothing. Only evidence does. Without evidence, any argument is only a theory, and thus not allowed to be called fact, or reality.
The Ideologies of today that pit science against religions, and who claim to align themselves on the side of science and progress because they trumpet rational thinking are completely missing the point.
They are in fact engaging in Sophistry. Which is the ancient art of persuasion through Reason.
This is why sophistry is often equated with lying. Because it frequently is. Reason is no more likely to be truthful than irrationality.
Reason belongs in the realm of politics, not science.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)