4 ms·

I hear that a lot. Wealth, science, infrastructure are better ergo the political system and decisions were good. I hear that from such diverse sides as Bill Gat

I hear that a lot. Wealth, science, infrastructure are better ergo the political system and decisions were good. I hear that from such diverse sides as Bill Gates and capitalism apologists as well as Soviet apologists. The truth is things improved in general in the last century because technology improved in the entire world in the last century. More efficient production, better medicide, massively more know-how in all fields of human endeavour. Yeah things got better in the entire world, but probably despite the system, not because of it.

Mediterraneo10 6y ago
Not saying I agree with it, but: A frequent answer to that from proponents of a strong unitary state (e.g. China, but also Russia and a few other countries) is that society there is too divided for the state to survive without a heavy hand. And then, once the state breaks down and the country splits into fiefdoms ruled by warlords, the collapse of infrastructure and violence means that the average person wouldn't be getting much benefit from modern technology. Just look at Somalia.
- coldtea 6y ago
  Or states where the strongmen were toppled by "democracy by bombing (and get their resources)" operations, that turned half a century stable places like Iraq, Libya, etc. into civil-war hellholes...
coldtea 6y ago
>The truth is things improved in general in the last century because technology improved in the entire world in the last century. Available level of technology doesn't magically improve things, and doesn't make you #2 global economy from a distant developing world one. Just check other developing world countries that had 1/1000 the success, regardless of 20 and 21st century technology being what it is. >More efficient production, better medicide, massively more know-how in all fields of human endeavour. Yeah things got better in the entire world, but probably despite the system, not because of it. There are tons of countries that don't even have running water and stable electricity, never mind "more efficient production and better medicine". Technology and infrastructure improvements don't apply magically by themselves.

Mediterraneo10 6y ago

Not saying I agree with it, but: A frequent answer to that from proponents of a strong unitary state (e.g. China, but also Russia and a few other countries) is that society there is too divided for the state to survive without a heavy hand. And then, once the state breaks down and the country splits into fiefdoms ruled by warlords, the collapse of infrastructure and violence means that the average person wouldn't be getting much benefit from modern technology. Just look at Somalia.

coldtea 6y ago
Or states where the strongmen were toppled by "democracy by bombing (and get their resources)" operations, that turned half a century stable places like Iraq, Libya, etc. into civil-war hellholes...

coldtea 6y ago

>The truth is things improved in general in the last century because technology improved in the entire world in the last century. Available level of technology doesn't magically improve things, and doesn't make you #2 global economy from a distant developing world one. Just check other developing world countries that had 1/1000 the success, regardless of 20 and 21st century technology being what it is. >More efficient production, better medicide, massively more know-how in all fields of human endeavour. Yeah things got better in the entire world, but probably despite the system, not because of it. There are tons of countries that don't even have running water and stable electricity, never mind "more efficient production and better medicine". Technology and infrastructure improvements don't apply magically by themselves.