Some people call it the Digital Revolution; some the Information Revolution; some another Industrial Revolution; some the age of the Great Re-convergence; and others just like any other time. What do you think? Are we living in a time of rapid change? If so what time is it (don’t be clever and give the actual time by the way)? What do you think has come to characterise our age and how will historians label it in the future?
Danny Dorling argues that “widespread inequality is an extremely recent thing for most of the world”. Richard Wilkinson, author of the Spirit Level, even went so far as to call this the “age of inequality” in a recent lecture. But we’re not talking just about wealth here. There are profound problems within our society, and they’re almost spiritual in nature. Part of this relates to what most probably first jumped into mind when you read the previous sentence: declining involvement in social groups such as churches, village activities and political parties, and a replacement with increased involvement in social activities intentionally devoid of any ethical affiliations, like sport for example. Some people liken this to the Roman Empire, whereby those who rush to football stadiums are compared with those who relished in watching others butchered in the gladiatorial arenas. But in actual fact there is a much bigger picture behind the scenes.
The evolution of Capitalism created a class war in the United Kingdom, in which aspiration and ambition are valued above all other goals. Tocqueville used to say that there was one thing that humanity strives for alongside happiness, and that that one thing was a combination of glory and honour. Glory and honour are socially constructed aims that were constantly pushed and promoted by those who could be compared to the media of today. Yet now it is achievement and aspiration which have come to dominate. And what it means is that politicians no longer talk about helping all classes. Instead they talk about helping people leave the working class, as if everyone in it is beneath the rest of society.
The new film about Margaret Thatcher is indicative of this recent social change like nothing else could be. The Guardian’s Polly Toynbee was recently asked to review the film. She said that she was expected to see the film as something wonderful for feminism, presenting a strong woman able to stand up to the world and beat whoever came in her way. Indeed Ms Toynbee said that the film was like this. But she also said that it was completely biased and un-historical. The film shows Thatcher in a heroic light, and yet as Toynbee said it shows nothing about the fact that child poverty jumped from 1 in 7 to 1 in 3. And neither did it show anything like this graph to indicate what could be criticised:
Now I’m Middle Class myself, and I don’t think that everything Thatcher did was bad. The last thing I want to do with this piece is attack anyone. But let’s look at the facts. The institutions of Working Class Britain, such as Trade Unions and council housing, were dismantled under her government. The industries of the Working Class, from manufacturing to mining, were torn apart. The communities were run down, and in many cases have still not received sufficient resources for regeneration. Even the values were attacked; values like solidarity and collective responsibility have been replaced by rugged individualism and expectations of individualistic aspirations rather than collectivist ones.
Today we have many, not only on the right but across the political spectrum, saying that as a result of changes since Thatcher the “aspirational working class” has gone on to become part of the expanded middle class, and what we have left in the working class are “chavs”. And as Owen James so excellently argued in “Chavs: The Demonization of the Working Class” the working class is now being stigmatised, demonised and scapegoated as a result of middle class prejudices that have arisen from these changes. And the stigmatisation doesn’t end there either. It’s no coincidence that almost at the same time as Owen James’ book was published another was published under the title “Scapegoat: Why Are We Failing Disabled People?”
Indeed even those within the mainstream parties recognise that there are problems, just not the depth that they go to. For example Ed Miliband talked some time ago about “predatory capitalism”, and this week Cameron talked of a new “moral capitalism”. Unfortunately what connects these two ideas is a lack of depth, and a lack of action. These two parties and people are both guilty of jumping on the benefit fraud bandwagon to score political points. If we want real change in this country then we must vote for big reforms, such as those talked about by the Democratic Reform Party, like a new party system where parties can more easily rise and fall, a series of compassionate reforms designed to tackle social ills such as homelessness and modern slavery, and a series of democratic reforms designed to empower the people and decentralise power.
Are we talking of a possible World War 3? Are we talking about global warming? Or are we talking the Great Recession (my name for the current economic turmoil)? Each one is a huge security risk, and I’d love to hear your personal views. But as for mine, the first two are long term concerns, whereas the latter has multiple concerns that in my view have even greater need of immediate action. Below, I’ve listed my thoughts about some of what I feel to be the biggest concerns:
Iran
The oil prices are going up; there’s been a recent threat to close the Straits of Hormuz, which would push up oil prices even further; there looks to be no more chance of coming to an agreement on what we all suspect to be Iran’s nuclear weapons development; relations with Israel are no better; and those with the power to back up existing sanctions on Iran are massively over-extended. So Iran seems to be a concern on many levels.
The Eurozone Debt Crisis
So many people cite this as a problem that it’s hardly worth mentioning it anymore. But it is nonetheless a significant problem area, and perhaps the world’s biggest. If Greece pulls out of the Eurozone it’s not the end of the world. Even if the Eurozone ceases to be there could still be hope for the world economy. But Greece is almost certain to default if current trends are continued, and the markets have known this for a long time, which is precisely the problem. Governments and politicians are not responding to economic changes fast enough, or even acknowledging basic economic lessons until weeks or even months after everyone else seems to have done. So yes the Eurozone Debt Crisis is an enormous security risk to the world. But it makes my top list largely because it’s so simple a problem. It is a basic economic fact that fiscal and monetary policy need to be balanced. So we knew years before this crisis came along that one day the Eurozone would have to choose to either split up, or embark upon closer fiscal integration. The fact that so few politicians are strong enough to stand up and admit this basic fact is frightening indeed!
Chinese Property Crash
Continued high levels of growth in China has been one of the main supports for the troubled world economy. Remove that support and who knows what kind of turmoil awaits us.
A professor of political science from Beijing University thinks that within a couple of years property holders in Beijing could be on their knees begging people to buy their properties. He recently said that in the “last couple of years people cried wolf, but this time it’s real.” Prices in Beijing and Shanghai are already on the slide. And China is already adding the equivalent of the entire housing stock of Spain every year. This is unsustainable, considering that the pace of urbanisation looks likely to slow in coming years. In fact the professor quoted above, can’t actually afford a house in Beijing. If professors can’t then who can?
Of course to a very large degree this is a policy induced slowdown in response to China’s economy overheating. Within China there are a lot of people who want to buy property; they just want to make sure that they’re buying when prices are going up, and not down. So in part this threat to the Chinese property market is a short term cyclical one. If the government acts to support the property market, and decides to remove restrictions on property transactions, such as the amount of deposit that needs to be put down and the number of properties you can buy, then there seems to be reason to believe that the property market will continue along its recent growth trends.
However, China’s economic concerns are the world’s economic concerns, and as far as this one goes it’s a big one. You may think that China is far away, and maybe that you’re not employed in the property sector. But if you are thinking that then think again. Construction directly amounts to around 10% of the Chinese economy. If you then add all the secondary industries like building materials and services we’re in fact looking at closer to 25-30% of the economy. Imagine what a big slump in this big a part of the world’s number 2 economy would do for your confidence levels if you were an investor. Declining confidence levels would probably have the biggest impact around the world economy. But more directly, think of all the industries related to property. There are hundreds right? And many of these are situated outside of China, or support other businesses outside of China. Next imagine all the companies linked to these hundreds, and then those linked into them. We live in a globalised world, which means that whatever happens to one country’s economy will have an influence on every other economy. So even if your job’s secured, this would affect you.
Security Concerns in the Pacific
In addition to the potential for a Chinese property market crash there is a great deal of concern stemming from the Pacific region. Simply from China there is a fundamental, growing gap between rural and urban regions, less investment opportunities than there once seemed to be, huge levels of over-investment from the state (for example the 2008 Olympics area is now already in a state of disrepair), and knowledge that in the not too distant future China’s one child policy will be creating extreme demographic pressures.
In North Korea, so little is known about the new leader (Kim Jong Un) that we all have to be on our toes with regards to Asia’s trouble maker.
And the opposition candidate (from the Democratic Progressive Party) in Taiwan’s upcoming Presidential election is far less pro-China than the incumbent, meaning that we could see a much more tense relation between Taiwan and China in the coming years.
All of this grants reason to believe that the US’s recent decision to name the Pacific region as an increased risk was not the act of a regional “trouble maker” as an officially sanctioned statement from one of China’s top generals said. However this kind of language, and these kinds of events that are open for different interpretations, are commonplace between China and the US. So we should also be looking at possible future tensions over territorial zones such as the South China Sea (through which $5 trillion in trade sails annually).
Indeed, China’s military capabilities and deployment is growing daily. And the new US defence policy will be expanding US military presence in Asia too (though shrink the overall size of the force worldwide). Australia’s Washington Correspondent even had to reassure listeners that “it’s not a containment strategy”.
All these factors are reasons for concern by investors. And yet I’ve barely scratched the surface. But hopefully it’s food for thought. What do you think about the world’s biggest security threat(s) today?
That we are moving into a post Judeo-Christian society demands that we look back at history, and see where this society is coming from.
Pre-Judean society did not make a distinction between creator and created. Egyptian, Mesopotamian and native American societies all personified the world. So if you asked them why the river took the route it did, or why it rose and fell every year, they would say that it was because the river decided to do so. And the entirety of existence was all therefore one. It’s perhaps the only real ‘grand unified theory’ of everything in history. There were gods, but many of them, and often existing within a kind of governmental system. So people accepted governments and despots as natural parts of reality. Forms of government were not discussed in a scholarly manner, because the way things were was seen to be the way they must be. It is perhaps no coincidence therefore, that societies with a history of this kind of thought became more inclined to tolerate dictatorships as the centuries wore on.
Why did society enter the Judeo-Christian phase? And why did it not in Native American society? Much of it was down to monotheism. For the first time in history societies began to distinguish between created and creator. Politics came to be the way it was not because it was the only way to be, but because religion was deemed to be truth, and government should emulate the truth. Native America did not change because the Bering Straits were long since closed, sealing off communication between the two major landmasses; and because only in one landmass did Judean thought and philosophies spread. That’s a grossly reductionist argument I accept, since this largely neglects the different path followed by eastern civilisations. But nonetheless it has been primarily theology that has shaped our ways of thinking throughout human history.
Indeed, ask yourself what was democracy to Ancient Greece. Rule by the people, yes; but not as we view it today. In fact the reason why democracy was so revolutionary at the time was not because it contradicted rule by an elite, but rather because its opposite was rule by god. Although the ‘divine right of kings’ is a relatively more modern concept, theology was always the major basis for civilisation. In Judeo-Christian society rulers were seen to have been chosen by God, whereas even in Ancient Greece and pre-Christian Rome (both of which were polytheistic), government also mirrored their theological beliefs.
One of the major differences between these polytheistic and monotheistic societies was as I mentioned before, that the latter made a distinction between creator and created. This is significant because in a sense we are returning to this state today, in which ever growing numbers of agnostics and atheists no longer separate the world into creator and created. Everything is once more together as it was before the advent of monotheism.
The major difference however, is that for the first time in history we are starting to see the end of using theology as a justification for the way we make civilisation and government. Huntington was right in a sense to label modern day tensions as ‘clashes of civilisations’. But further than that this is the first truly global clash between progressive and conservative forces. The progressive forces want to see a world that is no longer justified primarily on theological grounds, whereas the conservative forces wish to abide by tradition. It’s not about being for or against religion; simply the extent to which religion shapes human society.
The air was crisp and the sun had set long before. I could feel the road beneath my feet as it jarred my knees. And with every step I ran further into the country. My breath pooled in the air in front of me as I reflected on the day’s events. As an eighteen year old living in university and suffering from a mild dose of melancholy, I was in no mood to return home the same way I’d just run.
Eventually I did decide to return. But it was cold and there were no street lights, so I had little idea of where I was. Foolishly, I decided to cut across to the coast and work my way back that way. I didn’t realise how far I’d come, and with the cliffs to my left, and sea to my right, I thought home was just around the corner. Alas, it was not.
The sea came in fast, and a storm picked up. I couldn’t turn around. By the time my senses kicked in and I realised what I’d done I’d gone too far. The only way I could go was forwards, and I had to simply hope for the best.
I was forced into a run, and then eventually to swim. But each time I passed a new turn in the cliffs I saw a new stretch of water ahead. Amazingly, I was still managing to pity myself. But I had at least realised my predicament. I remember thinking ‘I could die here… tonight.’ But still, there was little I could do at that point. Returning would have been too far.
So I kept going, until the waves were so fierce that I was being smashed against the rocks with every wave. And it was then that I arrived at a new set of rocks. They lay directly ahead of me. Sharp and jagged teeth jutted out of the ocean bed. My eyes widened in fright. I didn’t want to risk being thrown against them. And beyond them was a new expanse of water yet again. I began to lose hope.
But I couldn’t lose hope. There was too much I had yet to do in life. So I turned to climbing the cliffs. At first it was easy and I wondered why I hadn’t tried it before. But as I reached the top it began to level off. And as it did so there were no more handholds.
Buffeted by the wind and the rain, and with blood dripping down each of my hands I shouted at the top of my lungs “HELP!!” But out there, with the roar of the wind and waves carrying my voice away, my efforts were folly.
The rocks on which I was hanging suddenly came loose under my weight. I felt myself falling back as if in slow motion. There was no time to climb back down; only to jump.
With all my might I leapt up, trying to grasp something onto which I could trust my weight. I was fifty feet in the air, and all I was able to grasp was soil… which came loose in my hands. Thus I fell towards the rocks below.
Looking back on this experience I can’t help but compare it to where politicians stand today: at the top of a cliff with nowhere to go, and no one to help them. Under successive governments over the past few decades, and particularly since Thatcher, the UK government has been centralising power in the hands of those few who stand nearest to the top of the cliff. And all the while the winds have been picking up. For people have been growing more and more disillusioned by politics.
Even as far back as 1986 Members of Cabinet were walking out, complaining about the demise of collective Cabinet Government. And Blair continued the trend. It has worsened relations between central and local government, created a schism between different regions, hurt accountability, and focussed such power at the top that jobs have simply had to be ignored. Worse yet this centralisation has occurred across many states around the world. Just as governments copied each other in piling up their debts, so too did they copy each other in undermining democracy, and making government more conservative.
I was lucky with my experience. When I fell, I fell on the other side of those jagged rocks. So despite losing a shoe and my glasses, I was able to swim on to safety. But our governments may not be so lucky. And so instead of prevaricating and postponing the inevitable, it is time that this trend of centralisation is reversed now with a series of democratic reforms.
Those standing at the top of the political hierarchy today are in the dark. They’re lonely, their hair is fast going grey, and the systems they head are in serious need of democratic reform. What lies before them without this reform is all too likely to be a fifty foot drop and a stormy sea to embrace them. Even if they can get away as I did, the state of the economy today means that being hospitalised again won’t go down well!
In other words centralisation is the antithesis of democracy. And what’s more, the assumption that it is somehow more efficient than a decentralised system is misguided. Centralising tasks that initially belonged to two people into the hands of one is bound to result in prioritisation, and perhaps even neglect. Centralisation in government, by furthering the divide between state and people, results in extreme prioritisation.
The UK has responded to this extreme prioritisation with an explosion in the number of single issue parties and independent candidates. It’s believed that if this centralised way of doing things is the only way then the only solution must be to fragment. But that’s simply not true. There are three options: keep the system as it is; encourage fragmentation; or decentralise and enact democratic reforms.
A certain degree of fragmentation could work, but only if the entire political and electoral system was geared towards this. Many large democracies, such as India, the US and the UK use ‘First Past The Post’ electoral systems, in which fragmented parties effectively stand for the exclusion of those people who don’t have an interest in their ‘issue’. If person X was elected in constituency Y specifically in order to represent those 20% of people who care about issue Z, then who would represent the other 80%? Thus to allow single issue parties to exist, while not harming democracy in any way, decentralisation and democratic reform must be practised.
We have a party system in the UK, because it’s recognised that you need lots of people working together at the national level (more independence at the local level would be preferable) in order to get things done. But on the same principle we should also recognise that there is a limit to what any one person can achieve by themselves. Simply put, if you focus too much power in the hands of the executive then they will start to miss things, even if they don’t mean to. This is why I term what we have at present ‘extreme prioritisation’. It’s creating a system in which the executive is climbing further and further up the cliff-face, and giving themselves much further to fall. The clear alternative is democratic reform, which is far more decentralised, far more inclusive, and thus far more effective.
Peace as a goal is an ideal which will not be contested by any government or nation, not even the most belligerent. Aung San Suu Kyi
Do you agree?
On the face of it it sounds like everyone will agree. But I don’t, at least not entirely. At present no government explicitly contests the principle. But society today is undergoing vast changes. Aung San Suu Kyi is a politician; and yet she is the heroine of our times. Whereas the ‘greats’ of history such as Alexander the Great would today be known as bloodthirsty tyrants. So although today there may be no government that contests the ideal of peace as a goal, people like Genghis Khan most certainly would have.
Genghis Khan viewed humanity as animalistic and predatory. He believed that people can be divided into either wolves or sheep. Being a sheep was being peaceful and civilised, and lacking in physical prowess. As you can guess Genghis didn’t much care for these kinds of people. But the wolf, which he saw himself as, was warlike, constantly moving around, never succumbing to the temptations of civilised luxuries, and never aiming for peace.
What are your thoughts on this matter? Is there an argument against peace? And could that argument be used still today? Or is it out-dated in a world where everyone cites a desire for peace?
This line was written by Shakespeare, but it fits nicely into modern relativistic and post-modern outlooks. What sense do you think it has? Does it still apply?
Watch the video above. It presents an interesting view on why certain cultures exist, and why the pace of life varies from place to place. But if it’s right, and you can group people into past, present and future-oriented groups, then it means that we can change a great deal by making people more or less future oriented.
The video implies that future-oriented people are likely to increase economic growth more than those who live in the present. Does this then mean that we should make people more future oriented? Or should we instead realise that future orientation is causing people to say “I sacrifice friends, family and sleep for my success”? Should we encourage more future orientation or less?
Utopian visions have caught the imagination of some of the greatest minds in history, and formed a theme that has been echoed in historic libraries around the world. We have Plato’s Republic, Thomas More’s Utopia, an unparalleled publishing of nearly 100 utopian fantasies between 1875 and 1905, and more recently the publishing of Fukuyama’s ‘The End of History and the Last Man’, in which he says that the future will simply be managing past ideas. Most now agree that ‘the end of history’ reflected no more than a mood at the time. In fact it’s no coincidence that each utopian vision is eventually discredited. A state of universal perfection is a backward concept. It belongs with the absolutes of Newtonian physics; not with society past the teachings of Einstein. What’s perfect to one person is an abomination to another. And what is perfect to someone at age 40 may be an abomination to that same person aged 50.
So in fact there is no such thing as a true Utopia. However there are such things as ideals, and as such the closest we will ever get to utopia is a state of constant reform, adaptation and evolution.
Do you agree? Is the mood today one that will result in a death knell for the continued publishing of utopian visions?
If yes what are the conditions that make such intervention acceptable?
Battison's Blog 