Voting TaKtiX

Halliday on the worlds worst ideas

Professon Fred Halliday has written an analysis of what he believes to be the twelve worst ideas in international discourse. On some of his points, I agee completely, on others, he is completely off base. I seem to recall thinking that when I studied his theories properly, but that was a few years ago now.

Number twelve: Human behaviour can be predicted

He says it can’t be, I say he’s sort of right. Modern economics (and indeed public choice theory which I’m rather partial to) is predicated on the idea that a large number of humans can be predicted, given reasonable knowledge of circumstances. He’s right to say cerainty is impossible, but generalities are. He says scholars are berated for, for example, not predicting the rise of Islam. Well, I think that’s a fair cop; there were predictions, they were ignored by many (including him). Political islam is as much a resistance movement, and while the details differ, it’s the oppressed masses rising up against a perceived colonial threat once again. Just with different actors, different styles, and bigger weapons budgets.

Number eleven: The world is speeding up

With him on this one; in so many ways, plus ca change, plus ce la meme chose…

Number ten: We have no need for history

That’s a Thatcherism if I recall correctly, and it was just as wrong then as it is now.

Number nine: We live in a “post-feminist” epoch

He says we don’t, I say, in some respects, we do. The argument in the UK and the US has one, it’s about details, implementation, checking. To say it’s not needed is stupid, but to continue fighting old battles is just as stupid.

Number eight: Markets are a “natural” phenomenon which allow for the efficient allocation of resources and preferences

Hmm, markets aren’t natural, apparently. He’s bought into the myths and not learn the details; market failure exists, yes, that’s not proof that markets don’t work, just evidence for externalities and limited natural monopolies.

Number seven: Religion should again be allowed, when not encouraged, to play a role in political and social life

Hmm, let’s see. Yup, with him 100% on that one, in fact, let’s go with a quote:

For centuries, those aspiring to freedom and democracy, be it in Europe or the middle east, fought to push back the influence of religion on public life. Secularism cannot guarantee freedom, but, against the claims of tradition and superstition, and the uses to which religion is put in modern political life, from California to Kuwait, it is an essential bulwark.

No argument from me there; anyone else?

Number six: In the modern world, we do not need utopias

Well, we’re not going to get them, but he’s right, a man has to dream. I want to retire on Mars, with peace on earth, how about you?

Number five: We should welcome the spread of English as a world language

We should? Well, I made a living from the desire of others to learn it for years, so perhaps, but not if it’s tied to increasing insularism in the English speaking world, and most certainly not if we’re all to get bland homogeneity. With him on that one.

Number four: The world is divided into incomparable moral blocs, or civilisations

Ah, the wonderful Huntingdon. Agree with Halliday completely, no no no no no.

Number three: Diasporas have a legitimate role to play in national and international politics

I think he’s right here as well:

Emigrant ethnic communities play almost always a negative, backward, at once hysterical and obstructive, role in resolving the conflicts of their countries of origin: Armenians and Turks, Jews and Arabs, various strands of Irish, are prime examples on the inter-ethnic front, as are exiles in the United States in regard to resolving the problems of Cuba, or policymaking on Iran. English emigrants are less noted for any such political role, though their spasms of collective inebriation and conformist ghettoised lifestyles abroad do little to enhance the reputation of their home country.

Hmm, d’you think he’s talking about Tim?

Number two: The only thing “they” understand is force

Agree with his analysis, colonialist bullshit dressed up as neo-conservative pro active racism.

Number one: The world’s population problems, and the spread of Aids, can be solved without the use of condoms

And the wrongness of that, I think, we can all agree. Except if your name is Ruth Kelly, or you’re another member of a daft religious sect (see 7, above).

 Some very good points, some bloody awful points, and some truths so self evident the mind boggles that they still need to be said. Any counterpoints?

January 9th, 2007 Posted by MatGB | theory, Atheism, Conflict, markets | 5 comments