The problem with progress

[Mr. Piccolo]

I was wondering, is the theory of inevitable gradual human progress a problematic one? Many progressives/liberals seem to be of the belief that the world is getting better as time goes on and that this negates the need for revolution because capitalism will slowly reform itself into something better, which is usually just a more pleasant form of capitalism.

I find this progress theory hard to believe because, from what I can see, workers, at least in the West, are actually worse off than in the recent past (roughly 1950s-1970s).

[Ele'ill]

i think an inhabitable world is going to gradually no longer exist, or suddenly no longer exist. I don't feel like the world is actualy inhabitable for me most of the time. The actual lived experience of real people tends to get washed out with rhetoric about the true productive capacity of generations to come and that of generations past while we currently rot.

[Subversive]

"The World" (aka: The first-world, only) is "getting better". There is no reasoning in believing that the workers have it worse off than they did in the 50s or 70s or any other point in time. They have more access to commodities, more access to available work, more access to technology, more access to services, more access to healthcare, and etc. There is nothing that was 'better' in the 50s, nor the 60s or 70s. That is merely an idealist lust for history.

The real issue with Reformism is that it caters to Capitalists and, as with any Capitalist system, allows the bourgeoisie to continue oppressing the worker, to continue unrightfully taking profits, and generally just screwing up the world. One element of this is resource-usage. We are quickly depleting limited resources, often for no real reasons other than to benefit Capitalists, and there is very little incentive in a Capitalist system to create sustainable resources to ensure continued production and the longevity of society.

Further, this concept of "Progression" completely ignores the third-world. The Capitalist first-world nations are only 'progressing' due to the labor of the third-world. While they, too, also have more access to commodities than ever before, they are also extremely dependent on first-world nations to supply them. Unlike in the past, many of these places have no infrastructure or stable societies which can exist without these supplies. They would, literally, die out if it were not for the so-called "charity" of first-world nations, or otherwise resort back to very primitive societies (though, with Capitalist imperialism, they are not far-off from primitive society as-is).

The largest problem, though, is simply the existence of any class division. It summarizes all of the problems with Reformism.
Capitalism will obviously always maintain income-gaps, class divisions, wastefulness, unemployment, and various other problems that are inherent to the Capitalist system.
So any amount of Reformism isn't going to fix these problems, it is merely going to be a bandaid on a leaking dam. Eventually that dam is, indeed, going to break.
Capitalists genuinely don't care about that future-prospect because they know they won't be alive long enough to see it happen.

In the Capitalist mind, the Reformist mind, they simply hold on to one thing: God.
They believe, truly, that God will make right with the world and when the dam breaks he will rescue them - that by some miracle they will be pulled out from the coming waves and simply continue on as before, as if nothing happened, as if Capitalism did not just suddenly destroy itself and society did not just fall apart. And they believe that the only reason he will do this is because they have faith in him - they believe themselves to be infallible, invincible, so long as "God is with us". One huge irony.

This is the truth of the Reformist movements. They are ignorant cowards hiding behind the shield of Religion hoping, no, believing that the world is fair, that all that is - is deserved, that all things are right the way they are now and will continue to be right in the future.
They do not believe in change, because they subconsciously, silently, believe that there is nothing that needs to be changed. The Reformist movement is a movement of self-contradiction and general human ignorance.

In other words: "Progress" as defined today is not really progress. It is the delusion that there actually is, or will be, progress, because these people do not truly understand what it means for something to change.

[Mr. Piccolo]

"The World" (aka: The first-world, only) is "getting better". There is no reasoning in believing that the workers have it worse off than they did in the 50s or 70s or any other point in time. They have more access to commodities, more access to available work, more access to technology, more access to services, more access to healthcare, and etc. There is nothing that was 'better' in the 50s, nor the 60s or 70s. That is merely an idealist lust for history.

I am not sure if this is completely true. Many new jobs being created today in the First World are temporary jobs or other low-paying, unstable, non-union jobs. While commodities have proliferated, I would say the average First World worker today is probably in a more precarious position today than during the '50s-'70s.

Western Europe especially seems to be much worse off today on a number of measures, especially unemployment.

[HampshireGirl]

"The World" (aka: The first-world, only) is "getting better". There is no reasoning in believing that the workers have it worse off than they did in the 50s or 70s or any other point in time. They have more access to commodities, more access to available work, more access to technology, more access to services, more access to healthcare, and etc. There is nothing that was 'better' in the 50s, nor the 60s or 70s. That is merely an idealist lust for history.

The real issue with Reformism is that it caters to Capitalists and, as with any Capitalist system, allows the bourgeoisie to continue oppressing the worker, to continue unrightfully taking profits, and generally just screwing up the world. One element of this is resource-usage. We are quickly depleting limited resources, often for no real reasons other than to benefit Capitalists, and there is very little incentive in a Capitalist system to create sustainable resources to ensure continued production and the longevity of society.

Further, this concept of "Progression" completely ignores the third-world. The Capitalist first-world nations are only 'progressing' due to the labor of the third-world. While they, too, also have more access to commodities than ever before, they are also extremely dependent on first-world nations to supply them. Unlike in the past, many of these places have no infrastructure or stable societies which can exist without these supplies. They would, literally, die out if it were not for the so-called "charity" of first-world nations, or otherwise resort back to very primitive societies (though, with Capitalist imperialism, they are not far-off from primitive society as-is).

The largest problem, though, is simply the existence of any class division. It summarizes all of the problems with Reformism.
Capitalism will obviously always maintain income-gaps, class divisions, wastefulness, unemployment, and various other problems that are inherent to the Capitalist system.
So any amount of Reformism isn't going to fix these problems, it is merely going to be a bandaid on a leaking dam. Eventually that dam is, indeed, going to break.
Capitalists genuinely don't care about that future-prospect because they know they won't be alive long enough to see it happen.

In the Capitalist mind, the Reformist mind, they simply hold on to one thing: God.
They believe, truly, that God will make right with the world and when the dam breaks he will rescue them - that by some miracle they will be pulled out from the coming waves and simply continue on as before, as if nothing happened, as if Capitalism did not just suddenly destroy itself and society did not just fall apart. And they believe that the only reason he will do this is because they have faith in him - they believe themselves to be infallible, invincible, so long as "God is with us". One huge irony.

This is the truth of the Reformist movements. They are ignorant cowards hiding behind the shield of Religion hoping, no, believing that the world is fair, that all that is - is deserved, that all things are right the way they are now and will continue to be right in the future.
They do not believe in change, because they subconsciously, silently, believe that there is nothing that needs to be changed. The Reformist movement is a movement of self-contradiction and general human ignorance.

In other words: "Progress" as defined today is not really progress. It is the delusion that there actually is, or will be, progress, because these people do not truly understand what it means for something to change.

I agree entirely with all of this.

[BIXX]

Progress has always meant the progression of oppressive forces to a more complete and totalized control over your life.

[Subversive]

I am not sure if this is completely true. Many new jobs being created today in the First World are temporary jobs or other low-paying, unstable, non-union jobs. While commodities have proliferated, I would say the average First World worker today is probably in a more precarious position today than during the '50s-'70s.

Western Europe especially seems to be much worse off today on a number of measures, especially unemployment.
You're overlooking far too much. You're merely idealizing history in favor of a few things.
You're overlooking the massive amounts of racism, sexism, ageism, enforced-Christianity, and various other problems that were all prolific in the workplace, and society in general.
You're also speaking only of the more advanced Capitalist first-world nations, like the US and the UK. Only these advanced-Capitalist nations even participated in the 'Golden Age of Capitalism'. Most of the world obviously did not benefit so much from the economic growth of the first-world.
You're also overlooking McCarthyism and political witch-hunts of Socialists/Communists during this era. Which confuses me because this is a Leftist forum and that is something really hard for Leftists to just forget.

And some people here might not agree with this, but Unions in a Capitalist system really do nothing in the end. They are merely a Reformist attitude. It has all the problems of typical Reformism and generally does nothing for the worker. If it DID benefit the worker, then why do we not still see them today? Why have conditions not improved? For whom have Unions improved the conditions of the workplace in the world today?

It is merely Reformism - Unions are a self-sacrificing system: They give themselves away to the Capitalist system so that the workers might be sacrificed. In exchange for the great sacrifices they give they get in return, temporarily and locally, the benefits for a few workers. Inevitably the Union-leaders will just favor themselves, their positions and their status, they become bourgeois, and then the Worker loses in the end.
This is the role of the 'Union' - a Reformist idealism. The reactionary means of a reactionary people. People who do not want true change but merely want the illusion of change. That is what Unions get you in this Capitalist world. It changes nothing in the end.

Could Unions be used to benefit the Worker? Absolutely. If they understand that this may mean it becomes necessary to break the law. That it may become necessary to become violent. That it may be necessary to be - revolutionary. But Unions are not revolutionary. They do not promote revolution. They end at Reformism and therefore they end at themselves; in Capitalism.

So, for the Average, Middle-aged, White, Pro-Capitalist, Christian Man, then yeah perhaps they had it a little bit better in the 50's and 70's.
Everyone else was screwed, and still is, but a little less so today due to social adaptations, mostly.

So if you're going to argue that things 'were better back then', then you have to understand your perspective is only stemming from a position of privilege and not from the real historical 'Worker', the working class.

The important thing to understand here is that we should not idealize the past, nor glorify the status of Capitalist-privilege, and make the present and future our goal. Only then can we overcome our lusts for history; because only then, after we overcome Capitalism, can we factually look back and say "the world changed".

[Rafiq]

Progress has always meant the progression of oppressive forces to a more complete and totalized control over your life.

Which assumes that the struggle against the order remains static. Progress exists objectively, but no matter the rise of standard of living in retrospect to previous conditions, the coordinates of struggle (can) remain the same. If working people were internalizing and articulating a comparison between their standard of living during the 1970's, and their standard of living in the 1870's, they would not be struggling at all. The fact of the matter is that we learn from history that we learn nothing form history - the axiom of comparison, the axiomatic standards in place always derive from present conditions in place, not all of history. The working people of the industrial revolution, whose condition fared better than that of the serf, did not constrain themselves because of progress. The coordinates of struggle not only coincide with progress, they are a pre-condition to progress. We would not be where we are now, if we want to talk about what can be a "higher standard of living" without the intensity of labor struggles and concessions expropriated from the state.

That capitalism constantly revolutionizes the means of production and progress exists objectively can only stand as an argument for capitalism if we approach our historic conditions, on a political level, holistically. Capitalism is not a "person" or an idea, it is a mode of production characterized by social antagonisms - progress exists, yes, but as a result of the qualifications derived from a real existing social struggle. If the working people had simply remained silent and allowed the process of capital accumulation to occur unhindered by their demands, they would be reduced to levels of pure sustenance and "social progress" would be an impossibility. Society IS better than it was at ANY point in history, the point is that this is not owed to some abstract idea called "capitalism" but real struggles which derived from capitalism, which sought its destruction. The conclusion of the organic process of capital accumulation (without class struggle) is barbarism. Barbarism was never rendered impossible, it was simply prolonged by our struggle.

[Brosa Luxemburg]

Progress exists objectively

That is a very bold statement, and you don't back it up.


but no matter the rise of standard of living in retrospect to previous conditions,

What do you consider a "rise of the standard of living" exactly? Marshall Sahlins makes a pretty good case that your definition of "progress" as domestication and the development of productive forces to a greater and greater extent didn't lead to a "rise" at all.

http://www.vizkult.org/propositions/alineinnature/pdfs/Sahlin-OriginalAffluentSociety-abridged.pdf

I'm not a primitivist, I don't think there's a problem with language, etc. and I think it is a flaw to fetishize hunter-gatherers when recent research is showing that there were problems that developed in their societies. If, however, by "standard of living" it is meant that "people are living comfortably, happily, and well off" then your idea that "progress" (meaning the development of the productive forces) coincides with a "rise in the standard of living" (living comfortably, happily, and well off) contains some basic assumptions off the bat that don't exactly match up with reality.

This is because these terms don't exist objectively, and by saying the do you can lay down some basic assumptions that sound correct but really don't make sense.

http://theanarchistlibrary.org/library/fredy-perlman-against-his-story-against-leviathan

http://theanarchistlibrary.org/library/wolfi-landstreicher-barbaric-thoughts-on-a-revolutionary-critique-of-civilization

https://www.marxists.org/archive/camatte/agdom.htm

http://theanarchistlibrary.org/library/peter-gelderloos-the-rise-of-hierarchy

[Rafiq]

T
This is because these terms don't exist objectively, and by saying the do you can lay down some basic assumptions that sound correct but really don't make sense.


No one argues progress is by no means defined by a rise in standards of living, but that progress and a rise in standards of living coincide. What this does not mean is: The ratio of the standard of living in comparison to what could have possibly been a better standard of living compared to the same but in a future epoch. It is simply incontestable that in the 21st century, the average person generally possesses access to better medical care, consumer goods, and means of life. Progress can be defined by the sophistication of productive forces, objectively - not only at the level of production but in terms of language, culture, and so on. It is simply impossible to argue that things were "better" back then - we are living in a new epoch of capitalism wherein the previous struggles which could even articulate the past as being conditionally more favorable to working people are either outlived, or petite bourgeois in nature.

The problem with your argument is that measuring overall "happiness" or "comfort" is only possible not with retrospect to previous conditions but to existing conditions. If they were, as I already mentioned, I absolutely promise you people would be very comfortable just where they are: The source of their discomfort and so on does not derive from comparing themselves to how their forefathers lived but comparing how they live to what can be perceived as how they could possibly live. The point is that progress DOES exist objectively and it is indeed measurable - the point is that history is not driven by a holistic understanding of it and thus, that our society has "progressed" has absolutely nothing to do with present points of (possible) conflict. In other words, progress occurs independently of consciousness of it. The proletarian dictatorship will lead to progress, but workers (or anyone else for that matter) do not act because of abstract notions of progress - progress is consequential.

The subordination to the "human spirit" with the revolution in the means of production or capital accumulation was only an act of subordination in retrospect to a previous subordination of our "human nature" - which wasn't less intense, but less complex. There simply is no natural state of man wherein we can measure its degrees of domestication. This is precisely why the theoretical insistence of domestication has its groundings in a petite-bourgeois pathology. And this isn't simply reserved for primitivists: the idea that the bourgeoisie has simply become stronger, and that the 20th century movement still exists, albeit weak is pathologically reactionary in that the exponential changes in capitalism, from technological growth even to cultural changes are with hostility met as elaborations of the victory of the ruling class against the movement.

If you want to skip all of that, to briefly sum it up: Progress can be measured by the ability to produce more in such a way as to be able to support more life, which entails the dislocation of previous conditions of life (i.e. older social and cultural bonds), more complex means of social organization which necessarily translates to a more complex understanding of the world. No one "acts" as an agent of progress for progress which means that the progress of the past decades has nothing at all to do with an argument in favor of the existing order but simply the rise of new coordinates of struggle. What we learned from the 20th century is that capitalism was not "done" with the world - but after the destruction of the remnants of feudalism through Stalinism, this antagonism is completely wiped away and -

The worker's movement prolonged the vitality of capitalism which otherwise marches toward degeneration and destruction by default (as it is today - see: European reaction and ISIS)

[BIXX]

None of what you said, rafiq, actually responded to what I said. For one my statement had nothing to do with struggle, or the social coordinates thereof. Fuck off and don't respond if you don't know what I'm actually saying dumbass.

I was simply speaking of the tendency for progress to really mean the progress of domination. Had nothing to do with struggle.

[Rafiq]

I was simply speaking of the tendency for progress to really mean the progress of domination. Had nothing to do with struggle.

Domination exists only from the substrate of the (possibility of) struggle. Progress owes itself to class struggle in principle - we are in a new capitalist epoch because of the class struggle of the 20th century. Any idiot can see that the gains of 68 have been subordinated and internalized by capital.

[Brosa Luxemburg]

No one argues progress is by no means defined by a rise in standards of living, but that progress and a rise in standards of living coincide.

What is a "rise in the standards of living?" People having Ipads so they can stare into them and ignore each other on their way to work, consume, and sleep?


It is simply incontestable that in the 21st century, the average person generally possesses access to better medical care, consumer goods, and means of life.

Better access to medical care? The rise of civilization led to a huge decline in overall health, and that is a historical fact. The mass grouping of people with animals, and people with people, created a climate ready for widespread diseases. Medical care now is about profit, and natural remedies that successfully treated problems have been taken by big pharma. companies. These companies don't give a shit about "good medical care" or a "higher standard of living." The pills they market are about modifying behavior to what is "normal", aka a good consumer and producer (domestication), or making you pay extravagant prices for opiates when it would be much easier to simply grow and use your own opium (and less likely to develop and addiction).

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YQZ2UeOTO3I

Sure, we have cooler "consumer goods" but these are generally just spectacles we passively observe rather than things actively involving us and enriching our lives. We get toys, like Ipads, to play with and distract us. If we consider, as an average person would, a "higher standard of living" to be living comfortably and happy, then consumer goods fail at both, as their pacification doesn't provide happiness and people slave away all day in hopes of attaining them.

What is "means of life"? A job? Fuck a job.


Progress can be defined by the sophistication of productive forces, objectively

Again, that is a bold claim you absolutely have to prove. What is "sophistication"? Making things more complex so only a small few can control and understand it?


- not only at the level of production but in terms of language, culture, and so on.

You really think the culture is more "sophisticated" now than it may have been back then?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XN14Kdo6PZE

The culture of the Native Americans is far superior, in my opinion, to that of Anglo-Saxon Protestant business men. This, is also, my subjective opinion.


It is simply impossible to argue that things were "better" back then

...just as it is impossible, then, to argue things are "better" now.


petite bourgeois in nature.

:rolleyes:


The problem with your argument is that measuring overall "happiness" or "comfort" is only possible not with retrospect to previous conditions but to existing conditions. If they were, as I already mentioned, I absolutely promise you people would be very comfortable just where they are: The source of their discomfort and so on does not derive from comparing themselves to how their forefathers lived but comparing how they live to what can be perceived as how they could possibly live.

I don't understand how this discredits my argument at all actually, since the present is nothing but the entire past combined. You are extremely wrong that people are comfortable just where they are.


The point is that progress DOES exist objectively and it is indeed measurable

Then prove it.


progress occurs independently of consciousness of it.

Then prove it.


The proletarian dictatorship will lead to progress

Why?


abstract notions of progress

:grin:


There simply is no natural state of man wherein we can measure its degrees of domestication.

I agree.


This is precisely why the theoretical insistence of domestication has its groundings in a petite-bourgeois pathology.

Um why?



the idea that the bourgeoisie has simply become stronger

Show me where I argued that, because I didn't.


and that the 20th century movement still exists

Describe what you mean by this.


If you want to skip all of that, to briefly sum it up: Progress can be measured by the ability to produce more in such a way as to be able to support more life,

Why is this the "objective" definition of "progress" and not just your definition?

[BIXX]

Domination exists only from the substrate of the (possibility of) struggle. Progress owes itself to class struggle in principle - we are in a new capitalist epoch because of the class struggle of the 20th century. Any idiot can see that the gains of 68 have been subordinated and internalized by capital.

Ugh. Your view is too narrow.

Also you're throwing in statements that are entirely irrelevant to the conversation at hand.

Also your claim that progress is due to class struggle is unsubstantiated. Yes, certain parts of progress are due to class struggle but there is progress that isn't. I feel that you're just arguing with me to discredit me without knowing what you're trying to say. Idk in don't have much time to post so I'll give a better response later maybe.

[Rafiq]

This is why I don't shorten my posts, everyone: Look at Brosa's response, full if incessant straw men and painfully ridiculous mis-interpretations.


What is a "rise in the standards of living?" People having Ipads so they can stare into them and ignore each other on their way to work, consume, and sleep?

Better access to medical care? The rise of civilization led to a huge decline in overall health, and that is a historical fact. The mass grouping of people with animals, and people with people, created a climate ready for widespread diseases. Medical care now is about profit, and natural remedies that successfully treated problems have been taken by big pharma. companies. These companies don't give a shit about "good medical care" or a "higher standard of living." The pills they market are about modifying behavior to what is "normal", aka a good consumer and producer (domestication), or making you pay extravagant prices for opiates when it would be much easier to simply grow and use your own opium (and less likely to develop and addiction).

From a god's eye view, a climate ripe for disease paled in comparison to the infinitely superior, more regular access to food through domestication and agriculture. Not that anyone actually cared about what was better 'overall' or from a god's eye view, but it was still objectively better if the point of reference is more people being able to live, progress does exist objectively. To say otherwise is a mere abstraction which completely takes advantage of this - even making such a stupid abstraction is dependent on living in a more progressive epoch. Your means of survival are infinitely superior than that of someone in exactly your class position a hundred years ago: You want to tell me this is meaningless because, I don't know, consumerism is stupid? You can be qualified to say it's meaningless when push comes to shove - hunter-gatherers would cut their balls off to live as you do. Obviously there IS meaning to it - human survival is not some trivial shit. You're ignorantly assuming that moral conclusions are being drawn from this recognition of objectivity which is beyond frustrating: As I said before, NOTHING is supported or opposed because it is more "progressive" or not, Communism as an embodiment of the interests of the proletariat necessarily is progressive, but no one can be a Communist because they want to "be progressive". We are dealing with relationships of actual power. This does not mean history is linear, which is why the word is misleading: More advanced modes of production DO exist objectively and can be measured by their social complexity and their productive capacity. The more complex and intricate man's relationship with each other and therefore nature, the more advanced the mode of production. You cannot 'step outside" of history and decide which ones are preferable, because BY MERIT of being able to understand this we already know that capitalism is the most advanced mode of production that has ever existed - we cannot be "beyond it".

I am honestly shocked at what I'm reading. More access to food, public sanitation, a rise in levels of actual comfort (including more access to technology), running water, electricity, heat during the winter - things you simply assume are owed to mother nature just by judging your post. Yes many people are deprived of this - but more objectively have better access to it than they did before. You're like a reactionary romantic of the 19th century glorifying the simple life of the rural peasant over the corrupt environment of the packed industrial cities: You want the cake without the icing. Only in a position that you're in, and not a hunter-gatherer who can't even fathom the notion of a written alphabet who lives in precarious conditions of life (and I don't mean not having a job, I mean not knowing whether you are going to die the next week. Being a homeless person today is much better than being a hunter-gatherer, I promise). And I can't possibly fathom how you could argue against this: Point out how everything is fucked up, but this is not in retrospect to any previous condition but in a future, possible condition. Things have gotten infinitely better than they were a hundred years ago and I can't even believe how any sensible person would ever argue otherwise. There has been no overall decline in health, what there has been a decline in is overall efficiency of the functioning of the human body in the short term, but despite all of this we still live much longer than we used to, and our chances of surviving until our natural death are infinitely higher. I don't know what the fuck you're arguing, it's rather simple: There are seven billion people on this planet, go ahead and romanticize how great hunter-gatherer societies were, but the fact of the matter is that it is unthinkable this many people could even exist during that time. Brosa, I am going to say quite honestly you have no idea of what you're talking about. Standards of living do not rise because anyone cares about them period - this isn't reserved to the medical industry, it is every domain of life. NO ONE cares about a higher standard of living, but caring about it isn't a pre-condition for its rise, otherwise there would be no history to begin with. What the fuck are you arguing with? Did I say our pharmaceutical industry is so great, and so on? No - I said we have better medical care than we did in previous epochs of capitalism, including the 1970's. This isn't a matter of subjectivity: Infant mortality rates have declined, and so on. The point of reference is not "before", it is what COULD have been, or what should be by merit of what is possible. That is where you can derive criticism: Because the pharmaceutical industry may be twisted, Brosa, but compared to one hundred years ago medical technologies are unarguably superior. So again, what's your point of reference? What could be, or what was?

I would otherwise dismiss such cheap romanticism as trolling - I mean really? People being socially alienated from each other, compared to previous epochs or pre-civilization, where you're much more likely to simply die, is pretty fucking trivial. It only becomes significant if we presume the achievements of our epoch - which is the point of Communism. You pre-suppose that there is some kind of meaning of life (besides living, of course) wherein we're "doing it wrong" by going to work, sleeping and consuming. But you don't make a point of reference for this meaning, even ideologically, in anything which by merit of its own ethical foundations is superior. Was it better before, some decades ago where people had inferior access to technology, education, medicine and food, and so forth? Was it better back then where sexual standards were much worse, where racial oppression was much more obvious and direct? You can go ahead and say this is all trivial - but you aren't in a qualified position to do so. As a matter of fact, you yourself are not "outside" of this epoch, so how do you look so condescendingly down at ordinary people who want ipads? The fact of the matter is that your cheap conservatism at best is only able to form such a petty criticism of our society from within the qualifications of our society - from a computer, from merely observing it. Without the pre-condition of mass consumerism, how the fuck would you even be able to fathom what is wrong with it? And from what point of reference or observation? Compared to "before" where it was better? It was certainly not better before - nostalgia works simply because we are able to look back on things and romanticize them based on pre-conceived experiences and notions we have now.


Sure, we have cooler "consumer goods" but these are generally just spectacles we passively observe rather than things actively involving us and enriching our lives. We get toys, like Ipads, to play with and distract us. If we consider, as an average person would, a "higher standard of living" to be living comfortably and happy, then consumer goods fail at both, as their pacification doesn't provide happiness and people slave away all day in hopes of attaining them.

What is "means of life"? A job? Fuck a job.


Having more access to things like basic toiletries, means of sanitation, food, and yes technology, mediums of the expression, communication and entertainment constitute more than being "cooler", Brosa. It is a stupid banality to suggest that these aren't in place for their use-value - of course they're not! No one is arguing that we live Communism - again, let me repeat myself: Progress exists independently of whether we want it to or not, or even are conscious about it! And listen very carefully: I never designated a higher standard of living, or progress for that matter as more people being happy. I am convinced that hunter-gatherer societies were much more "happy" than ours. But such happiness is a result of IGNORANCE of the world and our (possible) interactions with it and nothing more - Adam's fall from paradise is worth defending, because drudging through exponentially worse unhappiness is the only means by which any "true", honest and real happiness is possible. Agriculture was discovered for a reason. The fact of the matter is that our standards of living, our standards of life - being able to live more comfortably, with a higher risk of actually living, have increased. I mean, are you suggesting that people lived more comfortably decades ago? This simply isn't the case! In case you didn't know, a means of life is being able to support yourself as well as you wants, whether they are artificial or not. And these have improved. It is not even a matter of picking and choosing which qualificaitons for progress they are based on some kind of pre-conceived notion of what is "good" or "bad", it is simply recognizing that the factors of life which define the reproduction and perpetuation of life have become more advanced. These characterize our present condition - abstractions as the cliche postmodern drivel you're touting do not - they are secondary projections wholly dependent on the conditions from which they derive.

Things like Ipads do distract us. But from what? From the superiority of a previous condition wherein the ability for the ruling class to rule was less sophisticated and we were therefore "more free"? No! They distract us from critically thinking about our PRESENT conditions of life and the possibility to change it. But this is of consequence only: The bourgeoisie does not "intentionally" do this, it is not a conspiracy! So if we recognize it's not a conspiracy, then the idea of progress manifesting a more advanced way in which we are to be dominated is WORTHLESS because with a more advanced means of being dominating, so too equally arises the possibility of superseding present conditions of domination! The petite-bourgeois pathology which sees the past three decades as a continuation of the old struggle, wherein the bourgeoisie has simply refined its means of dominating and ruling, is absolutely and utterly wrong. Communism derives form the conditions of capitalism wherever capitalism becomes affirmative - so that the bourgeoisie has become more refined in suppressing previous means of revolutionary struggle, comes at the price of establishing the possibility of a new form of revolutionary struggle. This is why capitalism, as understood by Marx, is composed of contradictions. The advancement of capitalism comes at the price of the (possibility of the) advancement of a Communist movement. It is simple: to suppress a threat requires exercising power in a different fashion, or ruling differently. But in approximation to this new form of rule, a new threat can arise as well. Capitalism is a bit more complicated than one person placing another in bondage in an infinitely more efficient manner.



Again, that is a bold claim you absolutely have to prove. What is "sophistication"? Making things more complex so only a small few can control and understand it?

You really think the culture is more "sophisticated" now than it may have been back then?

The culture of the Native Americans is far superior, in my opinion, to that of Anglo-Saxon Protestant business men. This, is also, my subjective opinion.

What an utterly despicable and ignorant thing to say! I can't fucking believe what I'm reading! Our culture is INFINITELY more sophisticated today than before, even to ignorantly dismiss that which is perceived to be "dumbed down" entertainment is even more a dumb thing to do than the actual content of the song: Has it ever occurred to you that the same emotions, feelings and passions are being conveyed in a more complicated manner? Even your fetishistic qualifications for culture, postmodern in nature, are WORTHLESS. The same utter DRIVEL which is being said about hip-hop today was said about jazz when it emerged during the early-mid 20th century! If you cannot fathom how there are incredibly complex psychological processes to this, how intricate the ideological dimension which makes the song possible in the first place are, you simply are not qualified to even engage in any meaningful discussion about the 21st century at all. You simply don't understand that there is more to things than what appears - by prattling of how our culture is "dumbed down" (as this is what you were implying by linking the song), you yourself are a part of the banal stupidity that which you're trying to criticize. Sophistication doesn't even have to fucking mean 'classy' or poetically, aesthetically more profound anyway, the point is that it is more complex in approximation with a more complex social order. Has it ever occurred to you that looking back at something and talking about how it was so profound actually relies on present standards of profoundness? You talk about "proof" like any good postmodern subject, you're not actually asking for truth, you are deflecting the actual points at hand by bombarding them with impossible demands: You want me to literally come before you and show you how what I say is true as though I am proving to you that the color of the sky is blue. When you ask for proof, it has nothing to do with an innate desire to know truth, but a demand for your content, "opinionated" subjectivity to be directly violated to the point where it is unignorable, to where you would have to have psychosis to think otherwise. You ignorantly are able to ignore a collectively refined theoretical foundation of truth, because for you it's all a matter of 'opinion' - Which internally presumes that things only have meaning insofar as we individually experience giving them meaning, that as individuals we're so unique as to have such uniquely different experiences. Things are more complex today, this is not at all a bold claim. That few can understand something is irrelevant, that few understood that our sun was a star and there were several like it did not invalidate that this was true. These exist independently of whether we want to, or can understand them or not. We know Communism is possible precisely because of the synchronicity of the possibility of self-consciousness of our social existence and external truths (nature).

And Brosa, no one recognizes your right to conceit, fuck your "opinion". Do you think that by merit of being a living, breathing person, you have the right to designate truth? Do you think that your individual experiences are SO unique as to actually have self-sufficient merit in judging truth? No! As individual humans, we are worthless - we can only fathom the world in complexity in direct proportion to the complexity of our social relationships to each other. Truth can only be conveyed collectively (so long as we are not isolated animals independent of each other for our existence). If you have an opinion, you have to justify it, and if you cannot, it will not be respected. The fact of the matter is that you need to demonstrate how Native American culture is superior to existing culture, and in what way - and how such aspects are not valued based on a pre-conceived ethical substrate inherent specifically to our culture.

Because you don't give a fuck about native Americans. You care about the noble savage, the orientalized native Americans.


...just as it is impossible, then, to argue things are "better" now.


It is certainly possible, actually. The point is that the struggles of 'now' do exist, or can exist.


:rolleyes:

Have you ever considered that there may be truth to that which you dismiss as a left-platitude? Tell me Brosa, do yo think I say shit for no reason?


I don't understand how this discredits my argument at all actually, since the present is nothing but the entire past combined. You are extremely wrong that people are comfortable just where they are.


The point is that any discomfort they possess today is ony discomfort insofar as it is compared to the possibility of real comfort. If they were constantly given the choice of either living in the 21st century, or the latter half of the 20th (or during Hunter-gatherer societies, whatever you want - the point is that these would be the only measurable standards of comfort), they would not be comfortable. To have discomfort assumes a substrate of possible comfort. It is simple. Is this found in the past? It is not.


Then prove it.

I have set qualifications for progress, and I have "proved" them. If you think these qualifications need to be proven, you would be correct: Progress is a word, a vague word which can mean a wide array of things. But as it is being used within this context, it carries no moral connotations and has definite qualifications. I can replace it with more "advanced" if you like and it makes no difference. Denying the existence of social progress is playing a very stupid game - our means of survival have expanded and our mastery over nature has been sophisticated (without being conscious of it). If we were conscious of it, history would have been willed by men and women and class society would have never even emerged with the discovery of agriculture.


Why?


The proletarian movement internalizes and pre-supposes the achievements of capitalism. More advanced productive relations will literally be built, as the social predispositions for a better society don't exist within capitalism - it would be the first historically willful political act. Certainly with the rise of 3d printing, mass communication like the internet, and biogenetics certainly could give way to some interesting discussion: the point is that under a proletarian dictatorship dissonance between man and his relationship with nature will no longer exist - mastery of nature would be self-conscious. Indeed this would be more progressive, it has to be or it will never happen and could not exist (Not to suggest that saying the latter is ridiculous, but that I doubt you are arguing this).


I agree.


Then why bring it up at all?


Um why?

the idea that the bourgeoisie has simply become stronger, and that the 20th century movement still exists, albeit weak is pathologically reactionary in that the exponential changes in capitalism, from technological growth even to cultural changes are with hostility met as elaborations of the victory of the ruling class against the movement.



Show me where I argued that, because I didn't.

Describe what you mean by this.


No, this is exactly what you've fucking implied Brosa - with progress being a more "progressive" means of domination. Logically then, this would translate into the bourgeoisie having simply become more powerful in its rule for the past thirty years and that progress necessarily means the progress of class domination. This is precisely what Camatte argued when he abandoned Marxism and it was indeed a logical result of Bordiga's erroneous characterization of (the absence of) capitalist degeneration and the nature of the struggle - that capital had rendered humanity subservient to its will, that the proletariat has merely become a facet of the domination of the ruling order.

in that the exponential changes in capitalism, from technological growth even to cultural changes are with hostility met as elaborations of the victory of the ruling class against the movement.

Replace "the movement" with 'our freedom' and this is exactly what you have argued. What is meant by the innate idea that the 20th century movement still exists is simple: that the conditions of struggle have not changed, or that the same movement (by movement, I mean wave of Communism in general) has been put on halt.


Why is this the "objective" definition of "progress" and not just your definition?

Because it has been consistent with virtually every employment of the word in pertinence and in context. Progress does not automatically mean "what is better" in case you didn't know: It assumes a point of reference. I don't want to play semantic games: You know exactly what I fucking mean - progress to a certain goal which is automatically presumed to be desirable, even by bourgeois ideologues. What totalizes all of them as logically consistent is the ability to produce more and therefore support more people, in simplitic terms. This is incontestable - you have to be outside of it to contest this. You are not equipped with the psychological, linguistic or cultural standards of an American Indian, and if you were, you wouldn't be on this computer right now because it necessarily relied on the absence of computers and the condition of its impossibility.

What you are doing, essentially, is completely mis-interpreting the objectivity of progress as somehow either designating:

1. An argument which is moral in nature: This is not the point, no one argues in favor of progress "for" progress (and superiority has nothing to do with moral superiority - which as a dichotomy is worthless). As I said before:

In other words, progress occurs independently of consciousness of it. The proletarian dictatorship will lead to progress, but workers (or anyone else for that matter) do not act because of abstract notions of progress - progress is consequential.

Which means that saying something ought to be supported solely because it is "more progressive" without contextual elaboration is vague, abstract and in itself worthless. At the same time, touting nonsense like "progress is the progress of domination and leads to domestication" is equally, if not more ridiculous! We can understand progress in two ways: As ideological in nature, as projecting a magnitude of possibility to which ought to be achieved, and in the way we are using the word now - to designate more complex, more advanced mode(s) of production which allow people to make such infantile compaliations of available language in the first place as to "question" whether we are really more advanced after all ("Who are we to say that we're more advanced that remote tribes in the amazon!"). Orientalism is, after all, uniquely western.

2. An argument in favor of our present circumstances of life as they are, because in your philistine mind, if we are to articulate every previous epoch and compare their pettiness to now, this would be an ultimate argument in favor of the conditions of the now. But this misses the point: It is a reactionary pathology in that it designates the standards for quality in comparison to previous circumstances. When Hegel said all that is real is rational, what he meant was that all that is real is rational but not without further qualification. Our present epoch might be "better" than previous epochs, but it is impossible to turn back the wheels of time, it is false debate which is why reactionaries themselves can never achieve what they consciously aim at. It therefore has nothing to do with the conditions of now, and if you read my fucking posts, you'd be able to understand this without such groundless dismissive arrogance - that women are less oppressed today than they were during feudalism is NOT an argument in favor of present conditions of sexual oppression - because once something enters the thresher of existence, it does so self-sufficiently and independently of conditions which had preceded it. In other words, the perpetuation of conditions of oppression and violence does so independently of its perceived forefathers, it happens as a result of interests unique to present conditions of power.

This is why, ultimately, progress does exist objectively, because coordinates of struggle become infinitely more expanded and complex to which previous conditions can even be perceived in a retrospective manner - conversely, those living in feudal society couldn't even dream of imagining what life would look like in a more complicated historic epoch. How is this difficult?

[Rafiq]

you're throwing in statements that are entirely irrelevant to the conversation at hand.

Also your claim that progress is due to class struggle is unsubstantiated. Yes, certain parts of progress are due to class struggle but there is progress that isn't. I feel that you're just arguing with me to discredit me without knowing what you're trying to say. Idk in don't have much time to post so I'll give a better response later maybe.

No, what they are not is pertinent to your immediate ignorance. I don't care to cater to it - it is completely relevant - just because you cannot fathom its relevancy doesn't mean anything. You claimed that progress has always meant the progress of domination: Well domination doesn't exist by itself, capitalist domination is itself an insistence of contradiction. I don't really care about how you feel, Placenta, you somehow are so unique, so qualified as to simply say things without even trying to support them. Only "parts" of progress are owed to class struggle according to you, and the reasoning? We don't get any! Because since we're all such unique individuals with such unique subjective experiences, I am in no position to intrude on Placenta's mental comfort zone! According to you, we can literally just say whatever the fuck we want to as long as they're consistent with what we want to believe. All progress is owed to class struggle, because it is class struggle which in the last instance everything is dependent on. I don't care enough about you to try and discredit you - by merit of the sum-total of your posts, you are already discredited (as of now, at least) in my mind. You are only unique in that you uniquely tout a lot of bullshit, and I deal primarily with addressing bullshit (from you or not).

[Rafiq]

On an ideological level, if you want to talk about the paralleled synchronicity of a 21st century Communist movement and the Bolsheviks, well, things are equally as "bad" as they are today as they were before - but only on this level - only if it is judged based on how it affects the movement compared to the enemy. The ruling order to which was to be superseded back then is just as condemnable as it is now, even if it has progressed, because the coordinates expand.

For example, a 21st century movement wouldn't be less ruthless against the ruling order because things have improved since the bolsheviks. My whole point is that this fact is not even articulated genuinely in practice, and cannot be.

[DOOM]

What is a "rise in the standards of living?" People having Ipads so they can stare into them and ignore each other on their way to work, consume, and sleep?



Better access to medical care? The rise of civilization led to a huge decline in overall health, and that is a historical fact. The mass grouping of people with animals, and people with people, created a climate ready for widespread diseases. Medical care now is about profit, and natural remedies that successfully treated problems have been taken by big pharma. companies. These companies don't give a shit about "good medical care" or a "higher standard of living." The pills they market are about modifying behavior to what is "normal", aka a good consumer and producer (domestication), or making you pay extravagant prices for opiates when it would be much easier to simply grow and use your own opium (and less likely to develop and addiction).

And yet the average life expectancy in the west is somewhere around 80 years.
Obviously meds aren't distributed fairly. While we're swimming in pills there are children dying from TB in Africa every day. My problem with your argumentation is that it simply doesn't apply to the society we live in. You're taking post-neolithic problems and apply them to late capitalism.
And then you go on spouting out conspiracy theories which you can't prove at all. "Big Pharma" isn't trying to control our brains and a difference between homegrown opiates and "artificial" opiates is yet to be found (protip: It doesn't exist).

[Vogel]

To answer original question: Time is neutral. People can progress or go backwards. It all depends on which side fights harder.

[revnoon]

I was wondering, is the theory of inevitable gradual human progress a problematic one? Many progressives/liberals seem to be of the belief that the world is getting better as time goes on and that this negates the need for revolution because capitalism will slowly reform itself into something better, which is usually just a more pleasant form of capitalism.

I find this progress theory hard to believe because, from what I can see, workers, at least in the West, are actually worse off than in the recent past (roughly 1950s-1970s).


In some ways gradual progressives to left seems to be how history has come to be!! But it can also be a generation thing more than gradual progressives. Being too much of a shock for that generation.

Go back to the 19 century where females any where in the world cannot vote or get job.

By before ww2 many countries allowing females the right to vote. Now post ww2 many counties now allowing females the right to work part time doing a desk job!! Yes a desk job!!:ohmy::ohmy: By the late 90's more females working and more jobs that where not available for them back in that time. But still there are male oriented jobs today and it is hard for females to get that job or get females being in management or CEO.

Blacks before civil rights of the 60's could not go to collage, drink at a water fountain in school or use restroom by white people.They had their own drinking fountain and restroom. And had to sit at back of any transportation and sit at the back of any restaurant or diner even some times out side.

And segregation in schools and city zoning laws was strong.Black people could not get house in white area no matter if had the money.

Gays,lesbian or transsexual would be put in jail if they got caught.

Drug use was no no.You got caught you did hard time. Now they just starting to loosen it on marijuana.

They still have the death penalty :ohmy: but no where like it was back than and the electric char is phasing out of being very barbaric.

Racism and sexism is still part of US but more blacks and females in government now that would cause street riot among conservative back than

So on social issues the US is more more left but not radical left yet.

Well sadly on economic issues nothing really changed from FDR to now. No universal health care and social programs that are like leftover food if you can call it that. That is how bad it is.

There is still large base of people that are very anti-universal health care and anti social programs to the extreme they want to even do away with food stamps and social security and allow people to starve to death.:ohmy::ohmy::ohmy:

The upper class pays hardly any tax money well the working class pays the most. I read that if every person pays one dollar in tax money yes one dollar there would be no homeless people on the street all could be in affordable housing.

But CNN and fox news have done very good job keeping Americans anti- anti-universal health care and anti social programs where now conservative just believe want other conservative say.

[Monkeyboy]

What we call progress isn't one-sided. For example, life expectancy. We do live longer. Note however that child mortality has been the biggest problem in less progressed societies - you could actually become pretty old if you just made it into adulthood. What happens nowadays is that while we live longer we are also much more ill. It costs more to keep us alive.

I think neither traditional societies or modern societies are perfect, I think our best option is a hybrid society that incorperates the best from both.

When it comes to progress I'm leaning towards the view of philisopher John Gray.

[Mr. Piccolo]

Not to bump this thread, but I found on the communism reddit page a link to this ThinkProgress article from 2013 about how the world is getting better. I wish I had seen this article before because it encapsulates the typical liberal anti-revolutionary argument that I mentioned in my OP. The ThinkProgress piece lists five reasons why the world is getting better and progressing in a better direction:

1. Fewer people dying young, more people living longer.
2. Fewer people suffering from extreme poverty.
3. War is becoming rarer and less deadly
4. Decline in murder and other forms of violence.
5. Less racism, sexism, and other forms of discrimination.

The article makes use of much research and theorizing by Steven Pinker, who I believe is a noted opponent of the Left and a proponent of human nature/evo psych ideas.

http://thinkprogress.org/security/2013/12/11/3036671/2013-certainly-year-human-history/

The entire tenor of the article seems to be that liberal capitalism, despite bumps along the way, like the 2008 Great Recession, is working well for most people.

What do comrades here think of this article and its contentions?

[ChangeAndChance]

Fuck, do I hate Pinker. The book that article is based on, "The Better Angels of Our Nature", is basically a gigantic tome of warped stats and logically unsound arguments for the status quo. It's like a literary shrine to liberal capitalism. I recommend reading an ISR article by Edward S. Herman and David Peterson: it's a thorough debunking of that tripe that a quick Google search should bring up.