John Gray

[spike]

What is the matter with John Gray that he makes such mediocre, dubious arguments? http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-16245250 Perhaps it's that he is a Marxist with no place to hang his hat. He is somewhere in a political wilderness, no man's land.

Gray believes that the European Union has been a myth when indeed it has been a work in progress. That's more than can be said for his beloved Communism, which collapsed because it had nothing to fall back on, no credibility or legitimacy what so ever. At least the EU has a history of voluntary unification whereas the Soviet Union, which he makes questionable comparisons with, enforced unification by torture and brutality. His arguments are generally strained, lacking in judgement and grasping at straws.

Gray thinks that the EU will go the same way as the Soviet Union. One big reason why the SU collapsed is because it hadn't cultivate human capital, thus it didn't have a fall-back position or the human resources to stop the decline. The EU may be staining at the seams but at least it has the human capital and initiative to renew and rebuild, something the SU never had. The SU never cultivated the political class or alternatives that could have navigated it out of its ideological darkness and internal corruption.

Grey attacks Francis Fukuyama for his naiveté. But at least he identified a commonality in human desires and aspirations that will and is rendering a similar form of governance around the world. Grey flimsily suggest alternatives to replace the type of governance the EU has built but doesn't have a clue as to what it might be.

Nevertheless, John Gray is an interesting cog. His being in the scheme is to criticize and get one thinking, even though his criticism in non-productive and pedestrian. Furthermore, he does offer a service: His arguments reinforce in people like me that in most respects our form of governance, liberal democracy, is right, fluid and ultimately moving in the right direction, that of experimentation until we get a truly adequate system, something his Marxism would never have the wherewithal or patience for.

[spike]

As I remember, it was John Gray who said that the terrorist attacks of 9/11 could spell the end of globalization. How wrong he was. This indicates to me that he is not a good reader of history.

In fact, globalization has increased since then. There must have been something about the world prior to 9/11 that the world liked and wanted to continue. Prior to 9/11 the world had developed a momentum towards being more integrated and interdependent, something those terrorist attacks alone couldn't break. In an earlier, less mature world those attacks could have led to a world war. However, they didn't, nor did they lead to anything close to a clash of civilizations as Gray and other like him probably thought.

[Arising_uk]

What is the matter with John Gray that he makes such mediocre, dubious arguments? http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-16245250 Perhaps it's that he is a Marxist with no place to hang his hat. He is somewhere in a political wilderness, no man's land.

Gray believes that the European Union has been a myth when indeed it has been a work in progress. That's more than can be said for his beloved Communism, ...

I must have missed something! Where do you get the idea that Gray is a Marxist Communist?

[Arising_uk]

... In an earlier, less mature world those attacks could have led to a world war. ...

No they couldn't, as no nation was responsible for those acts.

However, they didn't, nor did they lead to anything close to a clash of civilizations as Gray and other like him probably thought.

However they did lead to a fairly standard response from America, i.e. they lashed out and blindly destroyed two nations without thinking the consequences through. In one case it is perceived as a Christian culture re-playing the crusader role, hence a "clash of civilizations" and in the other, although it did overthrow a dictator, its now leading to a sectarian civil war. In both cases think the hundreds of thousands of dead think it very close to being in a world war, except in the latter case its a world war for oil.

[spike]

Arising: No they couldn't, as no nation was responsible for those acts.

Similarly, no one nation was responsible for the first world war. It was sort of triggered by a terrorist act in Sarajevo. In other words, 9/11 could have drawn up opposing sides, as happened leading up to WW1, and started other world war, if the the world had been less mature.

In most of his articles Gray comes across as a Marxist, which seems to follow a strain in British intellectual life.

[John]

In most of his articles Gray comes across as a Marxist, which seems to follow a strain in British intellectual life.

Wasn't he was a Conservative in the 80s and a New labour advocate in the 90s? More recently I've read a few extracts dealing with free-will or ecological issues so I'm not sure why you'd consider him a Marxist unless it's an epithet you'll throw at anyone who has issues with globalization and capitalism.

[chaz wyman]

Arising: No they couldn't, as no nation was responsible for those acts.

Similarly, no one nation was responsible for the first world war. It was sort of triggered by a terrorist act in Sarajevo. In other words, 9/11 could have drawn up opposing sides, as happened leading up to WW1, and started other world war, if the the world had been less mature.

In most of his articles Gray comes across as a Marxist, which seems to follow a strain in British intellectual life.

Low IQ & Conservative Beliefs Linked to Prejudice

http://news.yahoo.com/low-iq-conservati ... 03506.html

[The Jesus Head]

Spike :

Gray believes that the European Union has been a myth when indeed it has been a work in progress. That's more than can be said for his beloved Communism, which collapsed because it had nothing to fall back on, no credibility or legitimacy what so ever. At least the EU has a history of voluntary unification whereas the Soviet Union, which he makes questionable comparisons with, enforced unification by torture and brutality. His arguments are generally strained, lacking in judgement and grasping at straws.

I suggest you are reading John Gray who wrote Men are from Mars and Woman from Venus
because you are not representing the views of John Gray the political academic.
Firstly Gray found fault not of the European Union but its single currency.
I think he was right about that.
As for "Grays beloved communism" you appear to know absolutely nothing about what Gray says about communism. He in fact condemns it as another failed utopia.

Gray thinks that the EU will go the same way as the Soviet Union. One big reason why the SU collapsed is because it hadn't cultivate human capital, thus it didn't have a fall-back position or the human resources to stop the decline. The EU may be staining at the seams but at least it has the human capital and initiative to renew and rebuild, something the SU never had. The SU never cultivated the political class or alternatives that could have navigated it out of its ideological darkness and internal corruption.

What nonsense

Grey attacks Francis Fukuyama for his naiveté. But at least he identified a commonality in human desires and aspirations that will and is rendering a similar form of governance around the world.

Fukuyama eventually conceded that he was wrong to claim that history had ended.
Gray anticipated Fukuyama's folly many years ago.
As for Fukuyama identifying a common homogenous world I suggest you look at the state of the world today and ask yourself if USA hegemony is working.
A unified world under USA governance is a Washington consensus
utopia that Gray rightly describes as naive.
You do not have the slightest clue what you are talking about.
Your allegations are incorrect and your conclusions a travesty of understanding.

[The Jesus Head]

As I remember, it was John Gray who said that the terrorist attacks of 9/11 could spell the end of globalization. How wrong he was. This indicates to me that he is not a good reader of history.

Another crass statement by yourself. Gray has never stated that globalization would end since he identifies globalization as a technological figment .

[The Jesus Head]

In most of his articles Gray comes across as a Marxist, which seems to follow a strain in British intellectual life.

Gray condemns Marxism as a failed utopian project you clot !

[reasonvemotion]

Steven Pinker claims that far from being the bloodiest era in human history, ours is a time when violence has been in steep decline.

In his latest book Pinker challenges one of our deepest but unexamined assumptions – that current and recent times have been the most violent in human history. Pinker argues that this view is radically mistaken. Violence within and between societies – both murder and warfare – has declined from prehistory to today.


He identifies a number of forces that were key factors in curbing mankind's capacity for inhumanity: one of which was the impact of the Enlightenment on the way people thought about others.

The major voice dissenting from a chorus of praise belonged to political philosopher John Gray, who was unimpressed by Pinker's claim that the Enlightenment was a key factor in civilising humanity. Writing in Prospect magazine, Gray attacks what he sees as Pinker's identification of "the Enlightenment" with a carefully chosen but not necessarily representative group of thinkers.


The shooting spree in Norway, in July 2011, was a struggle to make sense of what happened. Was this an example of the danger of homegrown terrorism. How could Pinker lessen the magnitude of crimes like these, by comparison of prehistory. How does one measure violence. Is it by the brutality alone or by sheer numbers or both.

[chaz wyman]

Steven Pinker claims that far from being the bloodiest era in human history, ours is a time when violence has been in steep decline.

In his latest book Pinker challenges one of our deepest but unexamined assumptions – that current and recent times have been the most violent in human history. Pinker argues that this view is radically mistaken. Violence within and between societies – both murder and warfare – has declined from prehistory to today.


He identifies a number of forces that were key factors in curbing mankind's capacity for inhumanity: one of which was the impact of the Enlightenment on the way people thought about others.

The major voice dissenting from a chorus of praise belonged to political philosopher John Gray, who was unimpressed by Pinker's claim that the Enlightenment was a key factor in civilising humanity. Writing in Prospect magazine, Gray attacks what he sees as Pinker's identification of "the Enlightenment" with a carefully chosen but not necessarily representative group of thinkers.


The shooting spree in Norway, in July 2011, was a struggle to make sense of what happened. Was this an example of the danger of homegrown terrorism. How could Pinker lessen the magnitude of crimes like these, by comparison of prehistory. How does one measure violence. Is it by the brutality alone or by sheer numbers or both.

Steve Pinker is a twat.
He has a limited idea of human history - the story is not over, and the worst conflict is yet to happen.
The only reason his idea appears to be true is that human destructive power is now too dangerous to contemplate - but there are still many who contemplate this everyday - and it would only take a few (brave) stupid men to reverse Pinker's thesis in a day.

[reasonvemotion]

Welcome back CW, your terse responses were missed. LOL

[chaz wyman]

Welcome back CW, your terse responses were missed. LOL

I've been enjoying 34degrees and constant sunshine in Croatia with little time to join the Forum.

Steve Pinker suffers from a serious disease; Darwinists.

[chaz wyman]

Welcome back CW, your terse responses were missed. LOL

I've been enjoying 34degrees and constant sunshine in Croatia with little time to join the Forum.

Steve Pinker suffers from a serious disease; Darwinists.

Mao was once asked what he thought of the French Revolution. He said its too early to tell.
If you ask me what I thought of the invention of nuclear weapons, I would answer in the same way.