3 ms·

69 years ago this would have sparked hope in the people. But now we know better than to assume technological progress equals societal progress. To me, that’s th

by lapphi 3y ago

69 years ago this would have sparked hope in the people. But now we know better than to assume technological progress equals societal progress. To me, that’s the sad part.

bugglebeetle 3y ago
Well, about ~150 years ago, someone explained that workers owning the means of production was necessary for technological progress to equate to societal progress. Unfortunately, the only people who really seemed to understand this were people who were in underdeveloped countries, and thus at risk of being exploited by others, and elites in the countries looking to do the exploiting. Predictably, because they were more wealthy and technologically advanced, the latter defeated the former and halted all progress toward the general goal of wedding technological and societal progress, leaving us where we are today.
- akoboldfrying 3y ago
  >someone explained that workers owning the means of production was necessary for technological progress to equate to societal progress Except it's plainly neither necessary nor sufficient. Not necessary: Every tech innovation developed in a capitalist society that has ultimately improved that society. Not sufficient: USSR. >elites in the countries looking to do the exploiting Reminder: Stalin was an elite in the same country he was exploiting. If you think the societal progress of Soviet citizens was hampered more by elites from some other country than by Stalin's own policies, I'd be interested to know who you have in mind.
  - bugglebeetle 3y ago
    >Except it's plainly neither necessary nor sufficient. Historically, the only times in which workers in developed countries saw gains relative to Capital owners is when they organized into large unionized formations during the Industrial Revolution and when the West was under threat from Soviet Union, both materially and ideologically. Since the collapse of the USSR, inequality has spiked massively and technological progress has become even more decoupled from societal progress. And you’re correct about Stalin because the country was underdeveloped in its political economy and quickly devolved into totalitarianism under pressure from external threats. This eventually culminated in them attempting to speed-run a form of state-directed Capitalism, with its corresponding class formations (see Bettleheim’s book Class Struggle in the USSR). The same thing also happened in China, although more durably and shifted by about 20-30 years, relative to their revolution. Soviet and early CCP leaders were mistaken in thinking that you could leapfrog Capitalist development and thus both succumbed to its forces, the former externally and the latter internally.
    - akoboldfrying 3y ago
      >gains relative to Capital owners I think "progress" without further qualification must be understood to mean progress in absolute terms, not progress of one arbitrary subset relative to another. A society in which everything gets 2x better for left-handed people and 20x better for right-handed people has progressed materially despite the increase in inequality. (Inequality has its own downsides, but I consider those secondary to differences in absolute quality of life -- interested in any cases you can think of where there's a strong argument to the contrary.) >under pressure from external threats I think it's misleading to suggest that capitalist countries do not experience such threats, or experience them to a lesser degree. If you accept that all nations are constantly under pressure from external threats, the fact that the USSR was too is not an explanation for the authoritarianism that arose there. If it helps at all, I certainly don't consider capitalism a perfect system. The Industrial Revolution created the working class and made its members' quality of life dramatically worse in absolute terms for at least a century, but the benefits we have today are too enormous to ignore.
      - bugglebeetle 3y ago
        This is clearly measured by the share of wealth that is generated and returned to workers vs. Capital owners. There’s no need to get philosophical about it as this is all been pretty well documented. Things have become more unequal, as I described. > If you accept that all nations are constantly under pressure from external threats, the fact that the USSR was too is not an explanation for the authoritarianism that arose there. I do accept this and note that it is a common pattern across countries, relative to their development. The US became much more authoritarian post 9/11, suspended many forms of rights and freedoms, disregarded its own and international laws. But because it was a more stable political formation, did not devolve into full authoritarianism. Still, within 19 years, it faced an insurrection attempt by an authoritarian leader. The USSR was, by contrast, about a decade old, newly emerged from a civil war, and had very little in the way of solid state infrastructure. It’s thus unsurprising that they devolved into authoritarianism.
        akoboldfrying 3y ago

by lapphi 3y ago

69 years ago this would have sparked hope in the people. But now we know better than to assume technological progress equals societal progress. To me, that’s the sad part.

bugglebeetle 3y ago

Well, about ~150 years ago, someone explained that workers owning the means of production was necessary for technological progress to equate to societal progress. Unfortunately, the only people who really seemed to understand this were people who were in underdeveloped countries, and thus at risk of being exploited by others, and elites in the countries looking to do the exploiting. Predictably, because they were more wealthy and technologically advanced, the latter defeated the former and halted all progress toward the general goal of wedding technological and societal progress, leaving us where we are today.

akoboldfrying 3y ago
>someone explained that workers owning the means of production was necessary for technological progress to equate to societal progress Except it's plainly neither necessary nor sufficient. Not necessary: Every tech innovation developed in a capitalist society that has ultimately improved that society. Not sufficient: USSR. >elites in the countries looking to do the exploiting Reminder: Stalin was an elite in the same country he was exploiting. If you think the societal progress of Soviet citizens was hampered more by elites from some other country than by Stalin's own policies, I'd be interested to know who you have in mind.
- bugglebeetle 3y ago
  >Except it's plainly neither necessary nor sufficient. Historically, the only times in which workers in developed countries saw gains relative to Capital owners is when they organized into large unionized formations during the Industrial Revolution and when the West was under threat from Soviet Union, both materially and ideologically. Since the collapse of the USSR, inequality has spiked massively and technological progress has become even more decoupled from societal progress. And you’re correct about Stalin because the country was underdeveloped in its political economy and quickly devolved into totalitarianism under pressure from external threats. This eventually culminated in them attempting to speed-run a form of state-directed Capitalism, with its corresponding class formations (see Bettleheim’s book Class Struggle in the USSR). The same thing also happened in China, although more durably and shifted by about 20-30 years, relative to their revolution. Soviet and early CCP leaders were mistaken in thinking that you could leapfrog Capitalist development and thus both succumbed to its forces, the former externally and the latter internally.
  - akoboldfrying 3y ago
    >gains relative to Capital owners I think "progress" without further qualification must be understood to mean progress in absolute terms, not progress of one arbitrary subset relative to another. A society in which everything gets 2x better for left-handed people and 20x better for right-handed people has progressed materially despite the increase in inequality. (Inequality has its own downsides, but I consider those secondary to differences in absolute quality of life -- interested in any cases you can think of where there's a strong argument to the contrary.) >under pressure from external threats I think it's misleading to suggest that capitalist countries do not experience such threats, or experience them to a lesser degree. If you accept that all nations are constantly under pressure from external threats, the fact that the USSR was too is not an explanation for the authoritarianism that arose there. If it helps at all, I certainly don't consider capitalism a perfect system. The Industrial Revolution created the working class and made its members' quality of life dramatically worse in absolute terms for at least a century, but the benefits we have today are too enormous to ignore.
    - bugglebeetle 3y ago
      This is clearly measured by the share of wealth that is generated and returned to workers vs. Capital owners. There’s no need to get philosophical about it as this is all been pretty well documented. Things have become more unequal, as I described. > If you accept that all nations are constantly under pressure from external threats, the fact that the USSR was too is not an explanation for the authoritarianism that arose there. I do accept this and note that it is a common pattern across countries, relative to their development. The US became much more authoritarian post 9/11, suspended many forms of rights and freedoms, disregarded its own and international laws. But because it was a more stable political formation, did not devolve into full authoritarianism. Still, within 19 years, it faced an insurrection attempt by an authoritarian leader. The USSR was, by contrast, about a decade old, newly emerged from a civil war, and had very little in the way of solid state infrastructure. It’s thus unsurprising that they devolved into authoritarianism.
      - akoboldfrying 3y ago