Will the Twenty-First Century Conform to the 'Idea of Progress'?

[Red Economist]

I have been thinking a lot on how reliant communism is on the 'idea of progress'

In historiography, the Idea of Progress is the theory that advances in technology, science, and social organization can produce an improvement in the human condition. That is, people can become happier in terms of quality of life (social progress) through economic development (modernization), and the application of science and technology (scientific progress). The assumption is that the process will happen once people apply their reason and skills, for it is not divinely foreordained. The role of the expert is to identify hindrances that slow or neutralize progress.

Accepting Marxism, not simply as a critique of capitalist social relations, but as a blueprint for communist revolution, requires a hell of a lot of faith in mankind's ability to improve himself and society through scientific knowledge, technological and economic development.

However, the idea that the very concept of progress is a 'myth' has gained a huge amount of ground due to the belief in the inherent sinfulness (and/or irrationality) of human nature whether this is in terms of the social evils of total warfare, the holocaust, nuclear weapons, the irrationality of consumerism and it's destructive environmental impact.

This is of course, particularly acute when you are dealing with the history of communism for the 'failure' of communism to produce a better society (I know it is debatable, but I think most of us would not like to have lived in the USSR in the 30's).

Neo-liberalism particularly fervently advocates the belief in human selfishness as a pseudo-scientific fact has made it incredibly difficult to believe that mankind will better themselves. So in our century, people have almost stopped believing in progress at all. hence we have a popular culture full of dystopian/anti-utopian, apocalyptic and post-apocalyptic films and literature.

Personally, I'm desperately trying to put together reasons to be optimistic about the future, especially when I think about the prospect of climate change, (so I voted not sure). So, I was wondering what other people think, and wondering what your thoughts are on this.

[tallguy]

Depends what is meant by progress.

If it means technological progress, then the coming century is absolutely going to be a step backward in a big way due to resource depletion in the presence of growing demand from a growing and unsustainable global population. In turn, triggering a massive die-off numbering in the billions and the very real possibility of unadulterated barbarism.

The fall is coming. The only thing that will mitigate it and stave off that barbarism is a socialist revolution spanning the globe.

It's not likely but I have to hope and do what I personally can to promote it. It certainly wont come about without terrible bloodshed and struggle.

[RyeN]

One vote for other please explain:
Karl Marx was a prophet, he for saw the efficiency that would come from localized means of production with industrial techniques. So in order for the elite power base to keep their power, and keep jobs for workers they would need to use inefficiency to work. They also saw that creating an environment of scarcity would boost their capitol which is their means of control. Capitalism is a system based in greed, since greed is a negative energy; it produces negative effects in physical reality. The system uses greed of external power as a motivating factor, so it creates with inefficiency, and waste. These negative energy’s affect our planet and our resources, but on a deeper level our bodies are electromagnets and we emit frequencies based on the vibrational resonance with our thoughts and emotions. In order for a system based in fear maintain, it needs to keep more than half the population based in fear. Our thoughts create our realities, and we are constantly voting into the global consciousness through each though and emotion we have, the more our combined consciousness see's the world, that is the way it is created.

I believe we are all prophets as long as we are searching for higher truth, and we can look critically at the sequences of events that have been going on around us in the past, and what’s going on now, we can, like Karl use insight to for see what will happen. Time is relative to the observer. Understanding the metaphysical laws of attraction, and karma we can see that our species is at a critical point in our evolution. Using attraction, like energies attract like energies, just from a critical look at the fear based world we live in we can roughly see that at least 75% of people are predominantly giving off negative energies, or just wasting their energies on sense desires, or attachments. If it wasn’t for the 25% who give off positive energy, in cooperation with all other life, animal or plant, vibrating at a plus, the planet would die. Especially those few masters who vibrate at the highest frequencies, whose energy balances such a huge portion.

So following the signs of the times we can see that if we continue the way we are proceeding, we are in for the karmic debt of sowing negative energy. It may not be some cataclysmic event like a supper volcanoe, massive meteorite, huge crust shift causing total reformation of the continents, or any other potential, but it may just come in a nuclear war; set off by the powers we thought we have elected. So what is there left to do? Go on to the bitter end and hope that few enough survive to create a better way, or, find another way? I choose the latter.

[Slavic]

^^^

What?

There is no mystical positive energy that is fighting off the evil negative energy. None of this is grounded in reality and it just new age "philosophy".

While I do beleive that we are essentially just resonating energy waves, the idea that one such wave is good while another is bad is just humans injecting their morality system into the amoral physical world.

[Black Cross]

Progress doesn't need to be accepted as an idea (though I'm not aware of anyone in favor of regression or stagnation). It's inevitable that humans progress; it's kinda our thing.

And science/technology will always improve living conditions, even under capitalism, though I'm sure capitalist organization of society has made that process slow going. Science has already made capitalism obsolete.

As far as human nature goes, I've never met a person who, I think, would say "I'm an inherently bad person". So where all These evil babies are coming from, I don't know. Maybe they're all an-caps and libertarianism is a birth defect rather than a political ideology.

Sent from my SCH-I545 using Tapatalk

[RyeN]

In the 3rd dimension duality exists, however moving forward the evolution of our perception is to include higher dimensions. People throughout our history have transcended to higher planes, these are the prophets of the universal consciousness (god) the ones who taught Love, harmony with the earth, cooperation, giving of yourself without attachment.

A huge part of the problem is the domestication of our children, and in the way we have been domesticated. Capitalism fosters competition, and we are taught from birth to compete with others. In school we competed for marks, friends, parental love, In adulthood we compete for salary prestige, all things based outside our selves to feel comfortable. Communism is about non greed, and working for common goals Cooperating together. We now have the technology and abundance of resources, that if we applied cooperation and efficiency together we could pretty much iradicate menial labor, and there would be fewer jobs to do. People will have free access to and be encouraged to experience life, unlimited education, art, music, food made from the heart.

We need to picture our evolution on more of a macro scale. What are we gonna do with the other planets, how are we going to travel faster than light, what will the experience with other forms of life be like? Its all going to happen, and more, but the part we are stuck on is our limited perception of reality that only includes 3 dimensions. When we face down our fear and open our minds and hearts to the natural groove of the universe we will cooperate, in harmony and reverence.

Im saying that capitalism is a part of our evolution, and it has gotten us here, but knowledge and understanding are starting to change the need for it. We can help the process along by awakening as many minds to the truth of the global consciousness and the growth that is possible, when we create out of love. The cause and effect relation with regards to energy is exponentialy greater when possitive energy is used.

[Sea]

In the 3rd dimension duality exists, however moving forward the evolution of our perception is to include higher dimensions. People throughout our history have transcended to higher planes, these are the prophets of the universal consciousness (god) the ones who taught Love, harmony with the earth, cooperation, giving of yourself without attachment.

A huge part of the problem is the domestication of our children, and in the way we have been domesticated. Capitalism fosters competition, and we are taught from birth to compete with others. In school we competed for marks, friends, parental love, In adulthood we compete for salary prestige, all things based outside our selves to feel comfortable. Communism is about non greed, and working for common goals Cooperating together. We now have the technology and abundance of resources, that if we applied cooperation and efficiency together we could pretty much iradicate menial labor, and there would be fewer jobs to do. People will have free access to and be encouraged to experience life, unlimited education, art, music, food made from the heart.

We need to picture our evolution on more of a macro scale. What are we gonna do with the other planets, how are we going to travel faster than light, what will the experience with other forms of life be like? Its all going to happen, and more, but the part we are stuck on is our limited perception of reality that only includes 3 dimensions. When we face down our fear and open our minds and hearts to the natural groove of the universe we will cooperate, in harmony and reverence.

Im saying that capitalism is a part of our evolution, and it has gotten us here, but knowledge and understanding are starting to change the need for it. We can help the process along by awakening as many minds to the truth of the global consciousness and the growth that is possible, when we create out of love. The cause and effect relation with regards to energy is exponentialy greater when possitive energy is used.

I'll ask you nicely: Can you please stop being metaphysical? There is no historical trend of progress.

[Rafiq]

Undoubtedly, if anything has been demonstrated, it is that the limits of captialist production had not been exhausted by the late 1970's. The postwar economy drastically changed in composition, and as a result, progresses in technology and the sciences have exceeded levels in proportion to time moreso than any period in human history. The problem, of course, concerns the Communists at essence: The social exclusion of the majority of the world's populace. While the most intricate revolutions in technology occur, the world's population is increasingly confined into slums and every day more and more people in mass numbers become marginalized. While the world market might be flooded with worthless gimmicks, and while the sciences are on the verge of changing the human biological identity itself, the world does not trail behind, closer and closer are we on the verge of barbarism. These last few decades saw the complete legitimization of things previously foreign to capitalism, the religious revival, rising forms of a new kind of nationalism, and other such poisonous ideology.

When we speak of progress, we must do so only in reference to historical change. The industrial revolution, the destruction of feudalism. The changes and developments in capitalism will never, and cannot be reverted. Thus, as Communists, we must adapt to the circumstances and conditions created by them. We must recognize their existence and allow them to be an integral component in the development of a new communism. When Lenin posed the powerful question democracy for who? he did so in an era in which bourgeois democracy was gaining global legitimacy and liberal intellectuals prattled in awe of a new era by which democracy reigns supreme. Now, the degenerate bourgeois scum, the postmodern intellectual strata might speak of such dribble, only instead of democracy breakthroughs in technology. Through those vile Ted Talks, humanitarian institutions formed by the gods of poverty themselves, and so on. And we might reassess Lenin today and ask progress for who?

[ComradeOm]

I have been thinking a lot on how reliant communism is on the 'idea of progress'

If it is then we're fairly screwed. The idea of progress as a driving force of history largely died a death in the mud and blood of Flanders. We've not since seen, in the West at least, that sort of unbridled technological optimism that marked the 19th C. Since then the idea of progress has been largely waning and visions of future abundance (such as the Jetsons or other 1960s fare) are almost entirely missing from today's society.

Is this a problem for us? I'm not convinced that it is. The Victorian belief in progress was a thinly cloaked sense of superiority that ultimately led to campaigns of mass murder and a world in ruins. The post-war vision was equally unsustainable and, in hindsight, little more than a fantasy*. Is the current cultural stagnation of the West really that much worse? As I say, I'm not convinced.

What we do have to be aware of, however, is that Marxism is a product of the 19th C. Some elements of this are outdated and do need to be jettisoned. For example, the idea that there is a rigid schematic for stepping through historical stages or an inevitability about the triumph of the proletariat are both ideas that look increasingly obsolete.

*Which isn't to deny that living standards have improved across the globe in the past century - the idea of progress is as much about the perception of forward movement as the reality.

hence we have a popular culture full of dystopian/anti-utopian, apocalyptic and post-apocalyptic films and literature

While agreeing with your larger point, I would note that 'declinist' literature is nothing new. Popular dystopian visions or fears of the future go right back to the early 20th C. Progress has always carried an edge and late Victorian British society was positively petrified by fear that their supposedly enlightened society contained the seeds of its own downfall - hence the scares about Reds, Yellow Peril, the enfeebling/emasculating effect of modern technology, etc, etc. Many of the classics of the horror, apocalyptic or dystopian fiction genres date from exactly this period of plenty and general optimism

[Rafiq]

Comradeom, don't you think it's a stretch to say that the idea of progress alone led to several mass murders? Wouldn't it be more constructive to ask why this was the case?

Also, do you deny the existence of social change? The point of Marx's materialism was that analysing history is done through the lense of today, that there is no predisposition towards a final ends, but that real social changes, ultimately distinguishable from other events as totally historical, make up what we call "different stages in history". When speaking of capitalism, this is absolutely crucial.

While I tend to agree that there are elements within Marxism that need adjustment, that doesn't mean we throw away our historical legacy in favor of bourgeois historiography. We must recognize the absolutely distinct and revolutionary nature of Marxs conception of history.

What we should focus on today, contrary to adjusting to the discourse of bourgeois ideologues, is fighting them in a way that is relevant and at the same time true to Marxism. Lenin did precisely this, we should not forget that Lenin's world was incredibly different from Marx's.

[ComradeOm]

Comradeom, don't you think it's a stretch to say that the idea of progress alone led to several mass murders? Wouldn't it be more constructive to ask why this was the case?

You inserted the word "alone". That an abstract idea was solely responsible for the deaths of millions of people is not a claim that I would ever make.

I'm far more comfortable merely asserting that the conception of Progress (note the capital P) was an integral part, but only part, of the Western mentality during the development of imperialism and expansion of empire.

Also, do you deny the existence of social change?

No, I merely reject the idea that societies go through neatly boxed off and telescoping historical stages.

Lenin did precisely this, we should not forget that Lenin's world was incredibly different from Marx's.

Lenin was born the same year that Marx was writing the Civil War in France. They were hardly worlds apart; the London that Marx knew would not have been greatly different from that of Lenin's time. More to the point, both were the product of the same long 19th C. Lenin ultimately outlived this (just) but his character and outlook was shaped by, more or less, the same environment as Marx's; the same world that would come to an end in 1914.

[Rafiq]

I agree that it would be foolish to, as you say "box off" historical stages, none the less that does not mean recognizing distinct social (or historical) phases is to ignore their relationship with history as a whole. It's true that Lenin, as well as social democracy was not a product of a different world than that of Marx's. But I think it's inarguable that as demonstrated by World War I capitalism had entered a distinctive phase of development as elaborated by Imperialism, the Highest Stage of Capitalism. And it's important to remember that this previous world is the same one Lenin broke with when he denounced Kautsky and the social chauvinists of the second international, it is not a stretch to say that at the time of the October revolution, the world was quite different than it had existed during Marx's time. Lenin even said something along the lines of "Of this, Marx and Engels have not said a word" in reference to the unfolding events.

[Dean]

Depends what is meant by progress.

If it means technological progress, then the coming century is absolutely going to be a step backward in a big way due to resource depletion in the presence of growing demand from a growing and unsustainable global population. In turn, triggering a massive die-off numbering in the billions and the very real possibility of unadulterated barbarism.

The fall is coming. The only thing that will mitigate it and stave off that barbarism is a socialist revolution spanning the globe.

It's not likely but I have to hope and do what I personally can to promote it. It certainly wont come about without terrible bloodshed and struggle.

There have been so many crises in capitalism that the regime has developed contingencies for. I don't see these as likely scenarios to doom capitalism or humanity for that matter. What is more likely is that capitalism will - I think even willingly - give up on hard production assets due to their liability to hinder the profit mechanism. Communist social systems will develop out of existing conditions as a need for a gift economy when the profiteers decide that there is not so much profit in the production process to warrant its investment.

Progress will always continue. That doesn't mean it is simply a good thing. Capitalism will still have teeth in violent security-industrial complexes, which themselves are entrenching themselves. Much like our technology does plenty to both alienate and bring people together, the economy will shift in ways that express the need for human survival and dignity, alongside ways that express the needs of the violent states and capitalist organs across the world.

[TheSocialistMetalhead]

I personally don't believe we 'progress' throughout history. We evolve. Some things are better than before, some things are worse.

In terms of economic capabilities we have of course made a lot of progress. I'm really talking about social issues like sexuality, the way we treat immigrants, womens' rights...

The superstructure caused by the base is rarely just good or bad.

Having said that, the socialism I envision would definitely mean progress. But even is a matter of opinion I guess.

[RyeN]

According to novelty theory we have already passed the point of ultimate novelty. Progress is part of evolution, however the progress of our technology has been growing at a much faster rate than the evolution of our species, or our consciousness. Since passing the point of novelty on Dec 21 2112 our technology or novel inventions are growing exponentially faster than the evolution of our consciousness. However all things go in cycles, and I believe that we are on the precipice of a massive jump in the evolution of our culture, our society and our consciousness. N Theory says that if we dont match up the evolution of living matter to that of non living matter, our technology will destroy us.

I feel that it can still go either way, where we change our perspective from one that uses competition and views each thing outside itself as seperate towards one of cooperation that eliminates the idea of others. Isnt the point to evolve from Socialism to Communism and in Utopian Communism there is a classless society. Progress is happening wether people want to conform or not will dictate the outcome.

[tallguy]

Look folks, it's really simple. Mass distributed technology is born of civilisation and modern mass distributed highly complex technology is born of industrial civilisation. This is true irrespective of socialism, capitalism or anything else. These ideologies merely push the technological progress slightly faster or slower or in slightly different directions. The main thrust of technological progress, though, has been industrialisation. This industrialisation has, in turn, been reliant on ever growing access to key raw materials including metals and other minerals. The most important of all being energy itself in the form of hydrocarbons. These have then allowed us to lever up on several other fronts, most notably distribution networks and food production.

If the resources run out, it won't matter what ideology is in charge, the underlying material basis for pretty much all of our technologies falls away. Where socialism comes into play significantly is in how that fall is managed.

[RyeN]

Look folks, it's really simple. Mass distributed technology is born of civilisation and modern mass distributed highly complex technology is born of industrial civilisation. This is true irrespective of socialism, capitalism or anything else. These ideologies merely push the technological progress slightly faster or slower or in slightly different directions. The main thrust of technological progress, though, has been industrialisation. This industrialisation has, in turn, been reliant on ever growing access to key raw materials including metals and other minerals. The most important of all being energy itself in the form of hydrocarbons. These have then allowed us to lever up on several other fronts, most notably distribution networks and food production.

If the resources run out, it won't matter what ideology is in charge, the underlying material basis for pretty much all of our technologies falls away. Where socialism comes into play significantly is in how that fall is managed.

That really feeds into the belief that we are in an enviroment of scarcity. Scarcity is created out of fear to help motivate people to constantly consume. The reality is that we have an enviroment of abundance, and when we start to cooperate with each other we can start to create much more efficiently. We have more than enough for any size population we just need to make efficient use of the materials at hand. It all relates to the energy we use to create.

When we create with negative energy we receive negative consequences, part of that comes back in inefficiency resulting in waste. Its no wonder it appears we have an enviroment of scarcity when we burn through resources faster than we can replenish them. Luckily the opposite holds true. When we create from positive energy we have a positive cause and effect relationship, and the laws of attraction bring back positive results. Cooperation is the key to our success.

[Vladimir Innit Lenin]

The question here is not whether we will see technological and scientific progression, and economic/social creativity, but for whom will this benefit?

I am certain that, barring some sort of doomsday scenario/natural disaster/self-inflicted human catastrophe on a world scale, we will see some of the greatest technological and scientific advances we have ever seen between now and 2100. Does that mean that the 21st Century can be pronounced as a 'century of progress'? Not necessarily, and for 2 reasons:

1) Progress is not something that can be aggregated into some overall measure like GDP. Progress represents different outcomes to different people, and is likely to be uneven across geographic regions, socio-economic groups and so on.

2) Under capitalism, we know that many technological and scientific advances benefit only those who can afford to pay. Google Glass will go on sale in America for 1 day, for something like $1,000. Conspicuous consumption combined with wealth disparities across and within countries means that for the majority of the world, some of the great potential uses for technological and scientific progress (in terms of using social media, in terms of acquiring knowledge, in terms of medical innovation and so on) are inconsequential, in their lifetimes and well after that.

So yeah, there are really two parts to the puzzle. The actual existence of technologies and scientific methods that can benefit the world is necessary for social progress, but in and of itself not wholly sufficient. In order for 'progress' to truly occur, the world needs to be organised under a humane system that allows each person to benefit, in mind and body, from any new technologies or scientific breakthroughs that have the potential to progress our standard of living and overall happiness.

[Luís Henrique]

It is increasingly obvious that there isn't such a thing as the 21st century.

We are getting a replay of the 19th instead.

Luís Henrique

[Slavoj Zizek's Balls]

Progress doesn't need to be accepted as an idea (though I'm not aware of anyone in favor of regression or stagnation). It's inevitable that humans progress; it's kinda our thing.

And science/technology will always improve living conditions, even under capitalism, though I'm sure capitalist organization of society has made that process slow going. Science has already made capitalism obsolete.

As far as human nature goes, I've never met a person who, I think, would say "I'm an inherently bad person". So where all These evil babies are coming from, I don't know. Maybe they're all an-caps and libertarianism is a birth defect rather than a political ideology.

Sent from my SCH-I545 using Tapatalk

I agree with most of this. However, the statement that 'Science has already made capitalism obsolete' makes no sense whatsoever as the sciences are systems of knowledge and in no way can they make a (semi-political) economic system obsolete.

Oh and blueprints for revolution are nonsense too, because they are attempts to predict and plan something that is far too complex to be mapped out. We don't have all the factors and enough processing power to predict future events, and have them change according to new combinations of events.