The next 30 years, for glass-half-empty people
I saw this article on the Guardian. The UK’s Ministry of Defence wrote a report on “probable” changes in the next 30 years.
Here are some trends they see:
– “‘declining news quality’ with the rise of ‘internet-enabled, citizen-journalists’ and pressure to release stories ‘at the expense of facts’” (I hope they aren’t talking about my blog!)
– Large scale electromagnetic pulse weapons by 2035 that could fry electronics in a wide area.
– Neutron weapons that can kill humans without destroying buildings.
– Unmanned weapons platforms (already done.)
– terrorists using flashmobs
– an increase in popularism and Marxism in the middle class due to widening wealth gaps (thanks inflationary money supply)
– majority of world’s population lives in urban areas
– 98% of population growth coming from less developed countries
– continued instability in the Middle East & north Africa
– Islamic militancy putting focus on China (forseable as Chinese interests in Middle-Eastern energy increases)
– On the positive side, Iran may move towards transforming into a “vibrant democracy.”
Then again, perhaps in 2037 these predictions will all look like a paleo future. If somehow you stumble upon this post in 30 years, feel free to comment 
Well the bit about Marxism sounds good (I wish it had said the working class, not just the middle class, though), being myself a member of a Bolshevik group (Workers Power), but some of the weaponry advances are scary (but for how long have we lived with nuclear weapons, can’t get much worse than them…), and I completly disagree with it over the declining quality of news – the internet has allowed citizens power to bring out news that would otherwise have been subdued or lost in the pipeline.
Comment by Sean Spurr — April 9, 2007 @ 7:05 pm
Ask Cuba how that whole Marxist thing is working out for them.
Comment by Andrew — April 10, 2007 @ 2:59 am
Socialism only works as a utopian ideal. You need a society of completely selfless individuals. That isn’t going to happen.
All men are equal, some are just more equal than others.
Comment by Chris Beasley — April 10, 2007 @ 10:41 am
Chris – you are forgetting the concept of class struggle. Also Orwell was hardly an apologist for capitalism, he went and fought with the POUM group in the Spanish Revolution – this group was an anti-Stalinist communist group. Your view of socialism is clouded by the actions of groups claiming to be socialist (reformists, Stalinists etc.). This isn’t your fault, it’s commonplace because that is what socialism is presented as in the media. A utopian and/or dystopian ideal. This completely ignores the scientific (in the same way SEO is scientific) method of Marx, Lenin and Trotsky.
Cuba isn’t Marxist. Castro started as a Bonapartist, someone who seems to transcend the class struggle, and only went towards Stalinism when forced. Cuba has post-capitalist property relations however, even if it is run by a dictatorship, and the people of Cuba defend their nationalised services which, for one thing, allow them to have better healthcare than the Americans for free despite an embargo being placed on them by the USA. Marxists would argue in Cuba for the people to overthrow the Stalinist caste that rules them and plan their economy democratically.
Even the Pope recently commented on how Marx’s analysis of alienation was true (although the Pope is far from a Marxist!).
For an analysis of what Marxism really is I suggest reading http://www.fifthinternational.org/index.php?programme
Comment by Sean Spurr — April 10, 2007 @ 3:41 pm
So you are saying that true Marxism supports the idea of an economy should be run democratically in terms of planning, pricing, direction, wages, investments, pensions, retirement, etc?
And would you also say that Marxism supports the ideals of free speech, press, habeas corpus, and other basic rights? (I am assuming its a yes to healthcare, education, and rights that are now recognized by the UN and Amnesty International.)
Comment by Andrew — April 10, 2007 @ 4:14 pm
First paragraph yes, but this is what some non-marxist socialist utopia’s support too. Marxism isn’t an endpoint, Marx hardly ever mentioned socialism, Marxist is an analysis of the world, it’s contradictions, and how those contradictions can play out.
Second paragraph is a bit complicated. Marxists aren’t great fans of either the UN or Amnesty International. Free speech, free press, etc would be supported by Marxists under the proviso that their in no more availability to free press or speech because of ones economic position. Those who are rich currently control the media, except the internet to such a great extent, but even then only those who can afford a computer with internet access and also the time to write and read here can enjoy it’s privileges.
Comment by Sean Spurr — April 10, 2007 @ 4:19 pm