The Thought Office

“The Big Questions” is admittedly not the best place to go to watch intelligent theological debate. Asking resident layman Joe from Sussex “Is there life after death?” or “Is there a God?” is hardly going to produce any answer of worth. Not that I have anything against Sussex. Nor Joe. It’s all love, Joe.

But I was particularly disappointed when I came across an episode in which a pastor screamed at an atheist scientist: ”you are exercising faith”. The scientist attempted to defend his position, only to be interrupted by the self-same pastor with the well-thought rebuke: “Be honest, you are exercising faith”. Suffice to say, persistence does not supersede logic; had the scientist been given the chance to respond, “oh you’ve got me, I thought I could pretend atheism was not a matter of faith, and I would’ve gotten away with it to if it hadn’t been for that meddling pastor” would have been fairly unlikely.

Here’s how I assume he would have responded:

Faith is belief without evidence. Believing that Jesus trumped the laws of physics to walk across water is faith. Believing Elvis Presley is still alive is faith. Believing that Guns ‘N Roses really did spend 14 years making the at-best underwhelming Chinese Democracy is faith.

Deciding that, until concrete evidence to the contrary is presented, there is no solid argument for the existence of an anthropomorphic, human-sympathetic and intrinsically moral God (in short, theism), however, is not. It is in fact the opposite of faith. It is a belief system (or lack-of-belief system, you pedantic bastards) that refuses to believe in anything for which there is no sufficient evidence.

Perhaps a quote from Bill O’Reilly, one of America’s best loved TV personalities and general wise-men will help elucidate the situation. (For those from whom biting sarcasm has thus far been cloaked by masterful subtlety, I am indeed speaking ironically):

“I can’t prove to you that Jesus is God, so that truth is mine, and mine alone. But you can’t prove to me that Jesus is not.” O’Reilly implies that this means atheism takes more of a ‘leap of faith’ than theism.

But the same can be said about any belief, no matter how preposterous it is, because, in reality, it is impossible to prove that anything doesn’t exist; how could one even go about trying to do that? At best, one could find a list of conditions that must be met for something to exist, as we have done for the “life on other planets” debate, but if we found that life somewhere where those conditions weren’t met, all we would know is that our original set of criteria were flawed. If a theory is formed, and then a piece of evidence is found that disregards that theory, it is the theory that is disregarded, not the evidence. So when someone argues that something does not exist, they really argue that there is no evidence to prove that that something exists for now so its existence is highly improbable.

Similarly, consider the Flying Spaghetti Monster religion that set religious folk in outrage: you cannot prove that the Flying Spaghetti Monster exists, but you equally cannot prove that, somewhere in the stratosphere, undetectable to the human senses, there does not float a huge ball of spaghetti. Does that make Pastafarian-scepticism more of a leap of faith than acceptance of it? No, of course it doesn’t.

To say that atheism is a matter of faith is to claim that one needs to totally disprove something in order to believe that it is probably not true, even when there is little evidence to prove it is true. If one were to propose that Elvis Presley had risen from the dead, no one would be expected to provide evidence that there was no living Elvis Presley anywhere in the world to justify their stance that Elvis Presley probably isn’t anywhere in the world, except in his grave. In fact, the analogy is even more fitting because there are in fact occasional reported sightings of the King by those fans who just won’t let the mid-20^th Century go, just like believers and non-believers alike report being visited by the arch-angel Gabriel, or Jesus himself, all the time. The former does not stop non-Elvis-Presley-is-still-alive-ites escaping the ridicule that faces Elvis-Presley-is-still-alive-ites, so why should the latter mean that one has to disprove the existence of a God to be an atheist, and that one must accept that atheism is just another form of belief?

Essentially, atheism takes account of the scientific evidence that seems to suggest that an explanation of the nature of the universe does not require the inclusion of a theistic God. It follows that it is reasonable to believe there is probably no such God, at least until other evidence gives you good reason to amend such a belief. There is nothing wrong with believing that everything that science explains has been caused by an eternal, omnipotent being, as long as, in doing so, the believer accepts that this is a leap of faith: believing without evidence. Atheism is not faith: it disbelieves because there is no evidence.

As Tottenham High Street stood ablaze on that Sunday night in August, silhouettes flitted in and out of shattered shop fronts. Dozens of flat-screen televisions, laptops and games consoles were hauled from a demolished Currys. A nearby JD Sports was overrun by teenagers grabbing as many Nikes as they could. Looters had gutted an Orange store, picking up every Samsung Tablet, iPhone and Blackberry. Across the road, a jewellery shop had been uprooted with shattered glass strewn across the floor. No bookstores were harmed.

There were similar scenes across London. Pockets of violence had erupted from Croydon to Brixton to Enfield. On following nights, the violence spread across the country to include major cities such as Liverpool and Birmingham. Obviously, three nights of brick-throwing, shop-smashing and petrol bombs leave a considerable mark. The scale of damage was overwhelming: according to the Local Data Company, over one in ten retail and leisure businesses across the UK were affected to some degree by the riots. Tesco reported that 26 stores “suffered varying degrees of damage” whilst Sainsbury’s said 16 of its shops were severely affected. JD Sport lost £700,000 worth of stock across 16 outlets. Overall, the Association of British Insurers estimated that the cost of the damage may by north of £200 million. Most shops affected by the riots remained closed in the following days whilst other businesses in troubled areas decided to lock up early in order to send employees home safely. Moreover, customers were deterred by the fear of mugging and assault, especially in the evenings. Lost sales for retailers amounted to £80 million as vital trading hours were forgone. In a dismal economic climate, the riots could hardly have come at a worse time.

The riots also sparked fears over tourism and investment in the longer term. Images from the riots had been beamed across the world, undermining the country’s status as a safe and stable democracy. Even a small dent to tourism could deal a large blow to the UK economy: if only 1% of visitors cancel a trip to the UK, the tourism industry could face £520 million in lost revenues. Moreover, burned shopping centres and char-grilled high streets aren’t the most appealing neighbourhoods to those in search of prime real estate. The riots have definitely tarred London’s image as a safe haven for global investors. In the immediate aftermath, investors become especially wary of secondary locations – properties outside of central London. This worsened the outlook for Britain’s ailing high streets which were already plagued by empty shops and grappling with a difficult trading environment.

However, urban brands are built up over many years and it’s become clear that the riots have had only a limited impact on foreigners and the appetite for UK properties. Tour operators reported only 330 cancellations immediately following the riots in August. In fact, the UK received 30.8 million visits in 2011 according to statistics from VisitBritain, Britain’s national tourist agency. This was nearly one million more than a year earlier. This exceeded the increase of 300,000 visitors that the agency had expectedindicating the riots left most tourists unperturbed. The limited impact on tourism shouldn’t be surprising. Whilst the unrest was widespread, it largely focused on the less glamorous locations in the city away from the usual tourist hotspots. The property market demonstrated a similar resilience. The strong trading figures posted by Savills, a real estate adviser, for 2011 suggest that London has kept its image as a safe haven. Group revenue increased by 7% to £721.1 million and UK residential transaction profits rose by 11%, driven by strength in London. Furthermore, international retailers keen to get a toehold on major thoroughfares such as Oxford Street and Covent Garden have sent rents through the roof in central London. The capital seems to be back to business as usual.

Whilst the long term impacts of the riots have not materialised, we still can’t brush last summer’s riots beneath the carpet. In fact, a lot more than a dustpan and brush will be needed to clean up the rubble. Although listed companies should recover quickly, the majority of damage was inflicted on independent businesses which will struggle to stump the bill to reopen their doors. And whilst central London has recovered from the riots, communities on the fringes of the city will still suffer. However, in the midst of the reparations and rebuilding of lives, the riots have offered valuable lessons and opportunities for the UK economy to plough forward.

Firstly, the riots may have improved the UK’s international standings. Violence isn’t uncommon in major cities. According to the European Tour Operators Association “riots occur nearly everywhere,” from Los Angeles to Paris to Moscow. As a result, how a city or nation responds to unrest is far more important the fact that violence flared in the first place. So, although the Metropolitan police were overwhelmed during the first few nights of violence, they soon changed tactics and beefed up their presence on the ground – bringing in 16,000 police officers – to successfully contain the riots. Some courts worked around the clock to process all the arrests and charges. Moreover, the tough sentences meted out to looters have made clear the zero tolerance towards rioters last summer. Over 4000 people have now been arrested, of which roughly 2600 have been charged. And following on from last summer, the Met are training more officers in order to deal with riots. As a result, people may feel more confident about security and the protection of property rights in the future, encouraging more investment into the UK economy.

Secondly, the riots have brought the development of the UK’s poorer communities back onto the political agenda. The violence and unrest was as much a surprise to Britons as it was to the world. It seems the UK was far from the safe, stable and harmonious society it billed itself as. The riots began in some of the most deprived parts of London such as Hackney, Haringey and Lewisham. Those three boroughs also present some of the worst employment prospects in the UK. In Hackney, there are over 22 claimants per job vacancy. The situation is even worse in Haringey with almost 29 people chasing each vacancy. The education system in many Inner London boroughs has failed to provide students with the basic skills to succeed in the workplace. Primary schools in Haringey are the worst in Inner London and the standards in English and Maths have been falling. Whilst the criminal activity of looters is inexcusable, it’s clear that inadequate schooling, lack of opportunities and poor job prospects played a part in fomenting unrest.

Recognising the need to rebuild town centres and kickstart economic growth, Mayor Boris Johnson has committed £177 million to regenerate the capital. This includes the £70 million Regeneration Fund that will target the areas worst affected by last summer’s riots. More significantly, Michael Gove has mounted an attack on the last decade of education policy in light of the riots. The Education Minister has argued that a thicket of bureaucracy undermines teachers. Moreover, many teachers are ill-equipped and ill-prepared to teach in deprived areas. Academy status would provide teachers with greater control over their school, leaving them better set to educate their students.

However, Academy status is only one policy lever. The government will have to act on many more fronts in order to develop inner city communities. Many young people feel that they don’t have a stake in society and their voice falls on deaf ears. Although the conclusion from the Guardian’s interviews with 270 rioters should be taken with a pinch of salt, it’s clear that there are sketchy relations between the police and inner city communities. Some people believe that the police abuse their power in how they deal with ethnic minorities, use stop-and-searches and carry out raids. Last summer’s riots sprung from the peaceful protests against the Met’s shooting of Mark Duggan on 4 August 2011.

It’s unfortunate that inner city boroughs only gained attention after the violence of last August. But without the riots, the issues may have continued to be swept under the carpet. The success of Plan B’s latest album, Ill Manors, which deals with social alienation and the frustration of a generation of inner city youths, highlights the profound impacts of the London riots. Now, policy makers must grapple with some difficult questions. Redeveloping inner city locales will significantly benefit the UK economy. Educational reforms will take aim at the abysmal standards of numeracy and literacy whilst also dealing with the staggering situation of youth unemployment. A better educated and more hopeful workforce will attract capital to areas of the UK in dire need of investment. This is particularly relevant in the throes of a double-dip recession. Investment away from the City may also help rebalance the UK economy towards manufacturing – important if we’re not to leave all our eggs in one basket. Although the riots dealt a significant blow in the short-run, its long run implications will have a far more beneficial impact on the UK economy.

Biennio Rosso (“Two Red Years”) showed the influence of socialism within Italy. Between the years 1919 and 1920 intense communistic activity occurred and within this time communism could well have taken hold. However the fear of communism was wide spread throughout Italy and the fascist response was both violent and thorough.

In 1917 the Russian revolution occurred and the fall of a large empire such as the Russian empire led to widespread fear of Bolshevist revolution throughout Europe. The revolution destabilised Russia and the uprising of the lower classes worried many of the elite in other countries. Italy did not want communism control and as such Mussolini could utilise Biennio Rosso as an example of the growing socialist threat. Indeed the leading political party was the PSI and despite this not matching the Bolshevism in Russia many feared similar consequences of political ideologies that were aligned on the same wing of orientation.

The Italians therefore feared a less radical form of communism than the Bolshevist ideals in Russia but many viewed socialism in a negative light and wanted to avoid it. As such Biennio Rosso worried many and the large number of strikes that took place between 1919-1920 supports the idea that a socialist revolution in Italy could well have taken place.  However the fear established after the Russian revolution did lead to perhaps more opposition to the socialists. This does not diminish the support that the push for a socialist revolution received. In fact in 1920 the socialist movement reached its peak when half a million workers decided to run the factories by themselves. This also highlights the origin of support for the socialists and shows that the working class had a large influence throughout Italy when banded together under one move for change.

The period of time in which Biennio Rosso occurred and some historians argue that socialist revolution could have happened. However, the negotiation with Giolitti and the unemployment that existed weakened the foundations of socialism and the workers gradually withdrew becoming more disillusioned with Biennio Rosso after the promise of reform and improvements did come to fruition. The workers which supported the socialists subsequently sort alternatives to express their desire for political change and this was exploited by Mussolini who offered the change that appealed to the working classes.

Furthermore Mussolini exploited Biennio Rosso to suggest that he had saved Italy from Bolshevism and the propaganda which he produced surrounding this idea subsequently gained support from the elite who despised socialism. However the irony associated with this is the fact that Fascism entailed many similar ideas to socialism and it was these ideas which allowed Fascism to gain support from the working class. Biennio Rosso had also lost large amounts of support by the time that Fascism grew stronger and it is therefore debateable whether Mussolini did quell the socialist uprising.

It is also important to note that Socialism could well have come to power before considering that the PSI and the PPI had a majority in the 1919 elections and could have theoretically formed an alliance which ended the Liberal control. The coalition however did not occur however and the result was another weak liberal government which relied on an agreement between various parties to maintain power. This means that the socialists could not come to power and implement any ideas and the support they received subsequently declined thereafter. Despite this however in 1921 the communist party (PCI) did receive a few seats which could show a small lasting effect of Biennio Rosso.

Finally though the possibility of a socialist revolution allowed Mussolini to present an image of himself as the man who could save Italy and of course this allowed him to receive large scale support. Biennio Rosso can therefore also be seen as the final piece in Mussolini’s propaganda jigsaw which permitted him to gain power as a well supported ‘saviour’ of Italy. In addition it marked the end of Italian socialism and stopped any possibility of Bolshevism occurring within Italy. This did not mark the end of socialist ideas however as principles such as the ’8-hour’ working day existed in the fascist manifesto and Mussolini himself had begun as a supporter of socialism.

A statue of Mao Zedong dominates the hustle and bustle of Tianfu Square in Sichuan, China. Amongst the buzz, a camera is whipped out and a group of Chinese tourists clamour over each other for the best spot next to the Chairman. But a peculiar irony pervades the scene: Gucci-clad, sporting Lacoste shirts and armed with the latest smartphones, this vignette of modern-day middle-class China seems far away from the vision of Mao.

Communist-hardliners and middle class tourists make for awkward bedfellows. Mao sought collective ownership, outlawed private property, shoehorned farmers into communal outfits, burnt thousands of books, halted migration and installed officials to reach into every nook and cranny of life. China’s modern middle class, however, own homes, choose their own professions, enrol in top universities, migrate from inland to the perkier coast and enjoy anonymity and privacy online.

But Mao is back in vogue: the airwaves in Chongqing are laced with the wisdom of the Great Helmsman; “Red” has been weaved into the names of hundreds of schools, hospitals and offices; and nothing seems to pluck at the heartstrings of the Middle Kingdom more than a cheerful dose of Red Songs.

So, why does the romanticism about Mao continue? That is the question Niall Ferguson grapples with in the second instalment of his new documentary series on the Middle Kingdom.

First, Ferguson focuses on Mao’s successes. When the communist party assumed control in 1949, Mao closed the chapter on a China ravaged by civil war, crippled by Japanese occupation and on the brink of starvation. He unified the populace around grand projects and set about rebuilding the greatness of China.

However, Mao simply led the nation from chaos to catastrophe. The party implemented the Great Leap Forward - a process of rapid industrialisation and collectivisation, aiming to transform China from an expanse of farmland into a modern communist society. The policy ended in 35 million deaths, many due to severe famines. “Gargantuan Fall Backward” seems a better fit, as Ferguson quipped.

Mao’s follow up, the Cultural Revolution, was even bolder. Large swathes of the Party elite were purged. Historical relics, cultural sites and religious shrines were destroyed. Youths were mobilised in the Red Guard. Families were torn apart as young urbanites were forced into rural agricultural work. And intellectuals were demonised and harassed.

Mao’s reign was disastrous. Misty-eyed sentimentalism can go far – but it would be impossible to scrub away the memory of a decade of bloody upheaval. So the Chairman’s popularity must have another source. Perhaps the fondness stems not from what Mao did but what he made possible.

The Great Helmsman revamped the old civil service: party cadre swept into every city, town and village across China. Membership of the Chinese Communist Party exploded and Mao soon wielded an army of administrators, supervisors and local champions. The Cultural Revolution excited a generation of the disillusioned youths, immersing them in the political scene.

Mao had built an unstoppable machine with the capacity to ignite panic or prosperity. Under the aegis of Mao, this system crippled China. When Deng Xiaoping took over the reins in 1978, he proved the right pair of hands to unleash the machine’s full potential. Deng fused Mao’s state goliath with a capitalist profit motive. The fairytale which follows is well known: China has grown from the doldrums of poverty into a global powerhouse.

Memories may fade but legacies endure. The last 30 years have been a slow catharsis for the Great Helmsman. It seems the turmoil under Mao has been overwhelmed by the prosperity he made possible. And while China’s economy continues to awe and inspire, the fond nostalgia for Mao doesn’t seem likely to depart any time soon.

Niall Ferguson’s new documentary series charting the rise of China welcomes viewers to the nuances of a system which has delivered unprecedented growth over three decades, pulled millions from abject poverty and poses as a counterpoint to the West’s liberal capitalism. In the first instalment, Ferguson casts his gaze upon China’s social philosophy and sets about trying to answer some interesting questions: How has China managed to prevent the intricate patchwork of society fraying? Why does the authoritarian vein runs so deep in the nation’s cultural cosmos? How will China’s leaders continue to rein in dissent in the future?

For the first question, the narrator turns to the great Chinese thinker, Confucius, who concerned himself with the development of people and society. Confucius argued for a “harmonious society” which would cultivate altruism, righteousness and humanism – qualities he deemed crucial to self-improvement. This vision has been the cornerstone of China’s modern pursuit of economic development.

But why is social stability so important? When trust trumps suspicion, people of different factions are more likely to engage in cooperation, forge trade links, share knowledge and work towards mutual benefit, not mutual destruction. Stability suggests a unity around common goals. Resultantly, politicians can corral society into forgoing immediate consumption for investment and the prospect of higher living standards later. Finally, in a modern state, a calm and reliable environment encourages foreign firms to set up shop in China. This opens the door for China to enter new industries.

When Rio Tinto invests in a new mine in Eastern China, Chinese workers are taught the most efficient mining processes, are exposed to the best management practices, and develop links with financial colossals such as Goldman Sachs or J.P. Morgan. Local mining firms gain these insights when Chinese workers leave the foreign venture. Foreign investment induces this transfer of knowledge, raising the standards of home-grown businesses.

So, how do the Chinese pursue stability? Ferguson suggests that the authoritarian flavour to China’s politics has long been a pillar of social stability. The narrator looks back to over two millennia ago, during the Warring States Period, when China was carved up between many kings and warlords. Qin Shi Huang, who succeeded in unifying China in 221 BC, consolidated power by centralising decision-making and maintaining an iron grip on the activities of the underlying states. The Qin Dynasty, and those which followed, then oversaw a period of sustained economic prosperity. But the power scuffles continued, punctuating China’s history with spats of bloodied violence.

In a country periodically blighted by social unrest – the White Lotus Rebellion, the Taiping Rebellion and the Tiananmen Square Protests – leaders are well aware of the restlessness swelling beneath the surface. To that end, officials have enshrined social stability above individual freedom. China now boasts a population of over 1.3 billion people and 56 officially-recognised ethnic groups with innumerable subdivisions as well as countless unrecognised groups. More so than ever, China’s leaders pine for social harmony as they manage the precarious balancing act of economic growth and social development.

The supply of social housing has underpinned a host of policies aimed at reducing urban poverty and tempering activism. China has tapped into its massive supply of labour by increasing migration from the agriculture heartlands to the booming manufacture sites on the coast. Importantly, this migration is temporary; itinerant workers are expected to return home regularly. This halts the accumulation of shanty towns which may otherwise fan the flames of unrest. And where homelessness has concentrated, authorities have financed huge renovation schemes.

However, rougher seas lay ahead. In a recent article, The Economist highlighted that the number of protests in China, and their scale, has been growing. Moreover, China’s leaders are less adept at tackling the burgeoning technology-savvy population, who are increasingly turning to the internet to voice their concerns. The number of users at Weibo, China’s answer to Twitter, has exploded to 250 million. In the absence of a free press, the internet has become the prime source of news. Whereas the state could successfully keep a lid on social unrest in the past, word now spreads like wildfire on social networks; “local protests or scandals to which few would once have paid attention are now avidly discussed by weibo users”. As news of protests becomes more widespread, more people are likely to down tools and raise their placards, knowing that thousands of others share their worries.

Some voices are tentatively calling for greater individual freedoms. In a new book, Zhang Musheng - a retired official - has pushed the idea of slivers of political reform to “defuse mounting economic, social and political strains.”

Beijing is at a difficult junction: a large reshuffling of the party elite is pencilled in for later this year. China’s new leaders will be keen to address the resentment towards widening income inequality. However, anonymity makes supervising the internet an entirely different beast to the press. Netizens are largely free to bellow without fear of reprisals. Though, new legislation may force users signing up to online services to use their real name. But these measures won’t hinder the internet as the major vehicle for news.

The Party cannot fall on its old vices of manipulating the media. In fact, the changing circumstances may force officials to focus on real development - tackling the cause of unrest and not the news of unrest. Part-and-parcel of this will be greater political freedoms. China’s new leaders will face a fresh canvas. It will take great vision and courage to land that first radical stroke.