The Future Now

Arthur C. Clarke - visionary and storyteller

 Arthur C. Clarke died today.  One of my favourite writers, his books were an important part of my literary and political formation.   In marrying the possibilities of science with ideas around the possibility of a world in which human beings might one day live in harmony, Clarke was a great visionary.  He blurred the lines between fiction and reality with great success, despite setting most of his stories in a future which most people find fantastic.

Whenever I have that (all too familiar) conversation with people who just don't get science fiction I try to persuade them to read Clarke's Childhood's End; a book I would recommend to anyone not familiar with his work.

A keynesian Cure?

As you will know if you've read any of the articles listed in the left hand column of this page, I am not a Keynesian.  That is to say I don't believe a return to the Keynes-inspired fiscal polices that served western society so well in the decades after 1945, could deliver social justice today.

Keynesianism is a pretty good method for dealing with the failure of an unregulated market economy - one which inherently favours the already wealthy  - to provide an equitable distribution of economic opportunities and resources.  But it is a sticking plaster; and for anyone committed to the principle of social justice, an admission of failure.  Advocating a Keynesian approach is to say, 'well we can't do anything about root causes or the structural failings that promote injustice, so let's just try to alleviate the worst symptoms without screwing up the economy too much'.

The question remains, however, that if no progress is being made in respect of root causes, is there a short-term, stop-gap role for Keynes-based policies?  Having read this piece by Austin Mitchell MP (old Labour) in Monday's Independent, I'm beginning to think there is.

As Mitchell says, the problem with private investment is that its biggest impact is asset inflation: making the things owned by people who hold assets (like land) worth more, while doing nothing to produce more of the goods, or create more of the economic opportunities, which are needed by people at the poorer end of society.

As Polly Toynbee reminds us in today's Guardian, for all the faults (and they are many and considerable) the Labour government does still seem keen to do something about child poverty.  And it can only get anywhere near its vaunted targets by following a more Keynesian agenda.

Of course it's no long-term substitute for tackling the crazy foundations of the current (un)free market economy: the private appropriation of economic rent, allowing privately owned banks to create money at will, and allowing surplus cash that should be used for much needed investment in trade and manufacturing to be used as casino chips on global financial markets.  But it's worth a second look.  Especially with the global economy poised on the brink of recession.  The usual argument against a return to Keynesianism is that it would spark massive and damaging capital flight.  But with economic conditions as they currently are, that capital would not find many welcoming destinations at present.

The dangers of ideological equality

I have reservations over much of what Daniel Finklestien writes over at Times Comment Central - he and I are clearly cut from quite diifferent philosophical cloth - but today's piece about the absurdity of disabled campaigners arguing for the right for deaf  IVF parents-to-be to choose a deaf child over a child who can hear, is right on the mark.

I generally don't have much sympathy with those that blame 'political correctness' for so many of society's problems; such complainants are usually deeply conservative and, in their eagerness to condemn attempts to make people think about the harm that can be caused through unthinking use of language, reveal their own deeply entrenched prejudices.

This story, however, is a clear case of political correctness gone mad.  Addressing the deaf activist who has made this ludicrous assertion, Finklestien says,

It is courageous to refuse to lie down and be a victim. I can only admire that. But it is one thing to be strong, almost heroic, about his own misfortune, quite another to want it imposed upon a child.

13 March Update:  Daniel has just posted again on this topic; an excellent reply from a deaf person.

Why can't we do it?

For me, the 1950s and 1960s are perhaps the most interesting decades of the twentieth century.  Admittedly, they came after two world wars and the biggest depression in history, and they preceded the free-market revolution which laid the foundations for economic globalisation.  Nonetheless, what happened socially and culturally in these two decades set the political agenda for every decade since; and helps to explain why our social and moral aspirations are now so out of synch which the direction of economic advance.

If you doubt me, you should tune into Mad Men, the latest quality drama from the United States.  As most critics are saying, it is almost perfect: rarely can a TV drama have re-created an only recently bygone age so effectively.  Watching last night's episode, I quickly forgot it was television, it's almost too good for that medium.

I have long wondered why the Americans are so good at producing top quality original drama when we Brits have such a poor track record, especially recently.  You can only flog the Poliakoff horse so often.

In yesterday's Observer, Will Hutton had a go at answering that question with some success.  Although his conclusions do not bode well for the prospects of a revival in British TV drama.

As he says,

Too many people believe public-service broadcasting is outdated, hindering television; it will take a cultural revolution at the channel to persuade commissioners that paradoxically the best way of systematically delivering great programmes in a British market is to fuse public-service broadcasting values with commerciality.

Hutton's article is worth a read, and if you haven't watched Mad Men yet, there are two repeats of this weeks episode: on Tuesday evening on BBC2, and again on Thursday evening on BBC4 (yes, it's on the Beeb so no bloody commercials!).

Meaningless choice

This article by Deborah Orr is spot on.   It exposes the utter lunacy of addressing the falling quality of education provision in the UK by giving parents 'choice' rather than figuring out why schools are not helping so many children to reach their potential, and doing something about it.

As Orr begins,

Long ago when the concept of parental choice was introduced into the state education system, it was done under the assumption that this would somehow create a market in which schools would compete with each other and standards would be raised. A couple of decades on, I think it has become apparent that this theory has not worked. The worst schools are not compelled to improve because of parental choice. They just end up populated by the children of the parents whose choices are fewest.

It never ceases to amaze me how educated, thinking people like Andrew Adonis and the school's Minister, Jim Knight (both, incidentally, beneficiaries of top-notch private educations) believe they can improve education for the masses through such a misguided strategy.

If I am not for myself

I have always liked Mike Marqusee.  Apart from being one of the finest writers among contemporary journalists, the fact that he is American, and is a cricket-lover and exceptional observer of, and writer about, that beautiful game has always appealed to me.

His memoir has just been published, and there's an extract in today's Guardian.  In it he talks about the time, as a teenager, when he began to question the requirement of Jews to support the cause of Zionism.

As he writes,

Whenever Jews speak out against Israel, their motives, their representativeness, their authenticity as Jews are questioned. We are pathologised. For only a psychological aberration, a neurotic malaise, could account for our defection from Israel's cause, which is presumed to be our own cause.

Of course, the tribalism he cites is to be found on both sides of the Isreal/Palestine conflict (and indeed of most disputes between competing groups).  It takes courage to take a stand against extreme and unthinking views within your own culture or community.  Like Daniel Barenboim, Mike Marqusee does the cause of justice a great service.