4 ms·

>Except it's plainly neither necessary nor sufficient. Historically, the only times in which workers in developed countries saw gains relative to Capital owner

>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
    >This is clearly measured by the share of wealth that is generated and returned to workers vs. Capital owners. I'm not sure what you mean by "this". (I don't think you meant absolute progress, since that is not measured this way.)
    - bugglebeetle 3y ago
      Societal progress (vs. technological progress) is clearly tied to wealth inequality, as is evident by the US having high wealth inequality and underperforming other developed countries on various other measures of health and well-being (e.g. infant and maternal mortality, educational performance, lifespan, rates of interpersonal violence etc). It’s a crude yardstick, but wealth inequality is negatively correlated with any common-sense understanding of societal progress (“societal” being inherently collective, after all).
      - akoboldfrying 3y ago
        Thanks for clarifying, but I see no correlation. If we doubled the wealth of the richest 1% but held the poorest 1%'s wealth constant, do you think infant mortality, educational performance, etc., would worsen for anyone in society? I surely don't.

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
  >This is clearly measured by the share of wealth that is generated and returned to workers vs. Capital owners. I'm not sure what you mean by "this". (I don't think you meant absolute progress, since that is not measured this way.)
  - bugglebeetle 3y ago
    Societal progress (vs. technological progress) is clearly tied to wealth inequality, as is evident by the US having high wealth inequality and underperforming other developed countries on various other measures of health and well-being (e.g. infant and maternal mortality, educational performance, lifespan, rates of interpersonal violence etc). It’s a crude yardstick, but wealth inequality is negatively correlated with any common-sense understanding of societal progress (“societal” being inherently collective, after all).
    - akoboldfrying 3y ago
      Thanks for clarifying, but I see no correlation. If we doubled the wealth of the richest 1% but held the poorest 1%'s wealth constant, do you think infant mortality, educational performance, etc., would worsen for anyone in society? I surely don't.