3 ms·

It’s weird how there are so many publications, programs, think tanks, etc devoted to pushing the idea that neo-liberalism is “progress”. And whenever you trace

It’s weird how there are so many publications, programs, think tanks, etc devoted to pushing the idea that neo-liberalism is “progress”. And whenever you trace the funding upstream you inevitably find a billionaire with an agenda.

apsec112 6y ago
The described curriculum has very little to do with tax policy. It's mainly the history of applied science and engineering: "This program will explore: what problems, challenges and hardships in life and work were faced by people in earlier generations and centuries? And how did we solve those problems through science, technology, and invention? Learn about manufacturing from blacksmiths to assembly lines; about power from water wheels to combustion to electricity; about food from famine to industrial agriculture and genetically modified crops; about disease from basic sanitation to scientific medicine—and the struggles and circumstances of the men and women who worked to bend the arc of humanity upward."
- claudiawerner 6y ago
  >Learn about manufacturing from blacksmiths to assembly lines; about power from water wheels to combustion to electricity; The problem with this presentation is that it will almost invariably fall upon an implicitly political angle, using thought experiments made to further political points; for example, blacksmiths to assembly lines could well be explained with the Pin Factory analogy borrowing from Smith, but neglecting his role as a political economist, and likely the more abstract and philosophical criticisms from political economists after him (such as Ricardo, Marx, Sraffa, etc.). The course will likely not delve into these points, upon which the whole theory stands or falls, because objections to it are viewed as 'political' rather than 'objective', despite the original view and its assumptions already being political - just part of dominant political positions which persist. Further, how does a course like this avoid the sense of teleological technological determinism which Marx was accused of? I would hope that it includes a section on the philosophy of progress, history, and technology (of which there is a lot written), but I'm skeptical that it will be included. The quote from Steven Pinker at the bottom of the page leaves me doubly skeptical - there are several key criticisms of Pinker's work (and indeed the sort of graphs displayed at the top of the page) - a comprehensive overview is available in "Pinker and Progress" by Ronald Aronson (History and Theory Vol. 2, 2013) and Liberalism, Capitalism, and the Conditions of Social Peace: A Critique of Steven Pinker’s One-Sided Humanism by Noonan (2019).
nine_k 6y ago
Who, to your mind, might finance a new school? Are there billionaires without an agenda? (Or non-billionaires, while at it.) Hint: the state is often a billionaire with the biggest agenda.

apsec112 6y ago

The described curriculum has very little to do with tax policy. It's mainly the history of applied science and engineering: "This program will explore: what problems, challenges and hardships in life and work were faced by people in earlier generations and centuries? And how did we solve those problems through science, technology, and invention? Learn about manufacturing from blacksmiths to assembly lines; about power from water wheels to combustion to electricity; about food from famine to industrial agriculture and genetically modified crops; about disease from basic sanitation to scientific medicine—and the struggles and circumstances of the men and women who worked to bend the arc of humanity upward."

claudiawerner 6y ago
>Learn about manufacturing from blacksmiths to assembly lines; about power from water wheels to combustion to electricity; The problem with this presentation is that it will almost invariably fall upon an implicitly political angle, using thought experiments made to further political points; for example, blacksmiths to assembly lines could well be explained with the Pin Factory analogy borrowing from Smith, but neglecting his role as a political economist, and likely the more abstract and philosophical criticisms from political economists after him (such as Ricardo, Marx, Sraffa, etc.). The course will likely not delve into these points, upon which the whole theory stands or falls, because objections to it are viewed as 'political' rather than 'objective', despite the original view and its assumptions already being political - just part of dominant political positions which persist. Further, how does a course like this avoid the sense of teleological technological determinism which Marx was accused of? I would hope that it includes a section on the philosophy of progress, history, and technology (of which there is a lot written), but I'm skeptical that it will be included. The quote from Steven Pinker at the bottom of the page leaves me doubly skeptical - there are several key criticisms of Pinker's work (and indeed the sort of graphs displayed at the top of the page) - a comprehensive overview is available in "Pinker and Progress" by Ronald Aronson (History and Theory Vol. 2, 2013) and Liberalism, Capitalism, and the Conditions of Social Peace: A Critique of Steven Pinker’s One-Sided Humanism by Noonan (2019).

nine_k 6y ago

Who, to your mind, might finance a new school? Are there billionaires without an agenda? (Or non-billionaires, while at it.) Hint: the state is often a billionaire with the biggest agenda.