Is Progress Real?

Written By: - Date published: 2:41 pm, December 31st, 2020 - 65 comments
Categories: uncategorized - Tags:

It’s hard to overstate the extraordinary merging of events in Europe that led to the Industrial Revolution exploding in the mid-1800’s. There was of course at least 200 years of prior scene setting, across the sciences, philosophy and political arena’s. In say the year 1600 the so-called Renaissance was really the project of barely a few hundred elite individuals, located in a handful of European cities. (The fact of individuals like Leibniz were inventing to core of modern calculus, or Kepler determining the nature of orbital mechanics, while literally their next door neighbours still lived in a world of superstition, violence and often shocking cruelty is something that always intrigued me, and stands as an object lesson in humility.)

But such intellectual flowerings had occurred before, the Classical era being the most obvious instance, and similar events can be found scattered across the pages of history, but none went on to dominate the entire planet, and the reasons are not especially obvious.

Even why it was initially located in Europe and not say India, China or Africa are still the subject of considerable debate. Personally I still think Jared Diamond’s attempt in Guns, Germs and Steel remains one of the more coherent efforts, but he isn’t without his critics either. Diamond argues that it was essentially due to an accident of geography, biology and climate. But regardless of it’s narrow origins, the remarkable outcome has been an almost inexorable extension of human development and social progress across the entire planet.

Yet at every step in this process there has been vociferous resistance, a repeated versioning of apocalyptic alarums. Early in the process we had Malthus telling us that we would collapse because of population, Marx because capitalism, and numerous Victorian authors writing of the ‘infernal engines’ of industrialisation, culminating in the hugely popular works of Tolkien. And indeed the first crude manifestations of the Victorian era industrialisation were intolerably dangerous, inefficient and ugly. Yet despite the obvious deficiencies progress incomes were slowly rising, housing and public health improved, consumer goods became available to mass markets, railways and reliable ships made travel possible, literacy slowly became universal, professions such as nursing, teaching, engineering, medicine and law started to flourish. Police forces were established to reduce crime and violence, and political systems became more adept at policy and regulation. Nothing was of course perfect, but ordinary people could sense their lives were improving … and this more than anything else was sufficient to overcome the naysayers, even through two catastrophic world wars.

Post WW2 saw an enormous acceleration of the process. The US-led world trade order meant virtually all nations this side of the Iron Curtain could participate in trade and development. The collapse of the colonial empires signaled a new era in nation building, and the prospect of a global order. Oil became cheap and abundant, wartime technologies rapidly found new applications in civilian life. The abject failure of the marxist projects in Russia and China demoralised the anti-capitalists, NASA put humans on the moon, and for around three decades until the late 60’s the capitalist/industrialist paradigm was an unchallengeable success. So much so that it forgot to examine the fault lines in it’s assumptions. Vietnam and the US race riots, the counter culture revolution, second wave feminism were all symptoms of a culture with very shallow, materialist roots.

And within corners of academia the apocalyptic Malthusian thinkers adapted. Unable to challenge the economic order directly they chose to morph their ideas into post-modernism and environmentalism. Both had important things to say; post-modernism challenged the unexamined self righteousness of a dominating Euro-centric cultural order, while environmentalism rightly pointed to industrialisation’s failure to account for it externalities.

The environmental argument first revisited Malthusian population arguments, yet by 1968 demographers knew that human population growth had already peaked and was destined to decline. Then they argued for different limits, that we would exhaust mineral and oil resources, or that we would run out of environmental ‘sinks’ for our waste streams. The most important of these ideas was of course the limits on CO2 in the atmosphere.

The post-modernists started more quietly, making the valid point that reality does not privilege any one cultural narrative over any other. That because our limited human intellects have no direct access to absolute truth, therefore all narratives are limited, selective and ultimately self-serving. That in essence all culture is a construct intended to serve the interests, privileges and powers of the people who promote it. And thus the entire edifice of ‘progress’ has been built on nothing but a castle of deceptions and exploitation; an argument intended to delegitimise the notion of progress itself. Hence the title of this essay.

And since the 1970’s there has been a strong counter current movement built on these two ideas that has insisted either this progress has been achieved at a price to the planet we cannot afford to pay, or that what we have purchased was nothing but shoddy self-delusion. Both asked legitimate questions, both applied an entirely justified scrutiny to the dominant social and economic order, both posited apocalyptic outcomes if they were ignored, yet neither offered any solution beyond a poorly qualified demand that if ‘progress’ had such bad outcomes, it must therefore be dismantled. Or alternatively after passing through a crisis, some utopian reshaping of the disorganised rubble would become possible. (That both strands of apocalyptic thinking have degenerated into multiple camps of extremists is not very surprising, neither ever had any satisfiable end-point to their demands.)

Yet for all of it’s manifest shortcomings the great beast lumbered on, seemingly impervious to the increasingly shrill cries of those insisting that it was trudging toward an abyss. And this past year has in retrospect given us glimpses of what that precipice might look like, the great fossil fueled evolution of humanity, with all that it has brought us for good and ill, may well have finally reached it’s innate limits. We enter into a wholly unprecedented demographic inversion with ageing populations, game changing technical innovation slowed or stalled, and politically we’ve tried marxism, fascism and neo-liberalism … and none of them have proven useful either.

My thesis so far is that reaching back into the past, to try and solve the new problems of our present, while not always unreasonable, fails when confronted with the novel and unknown.

65 comments on “Is Progress Real? ”

  • Comments are now closed

  1. mickysavage 1
    31 December 2020 at 7:18 pm

    Thanks RL most of the way through your post I wanted to disagree with it but I got to the end and agreed with it whole heartedly. Good post.

    Now explain how we change things so that current political processes get us through the next thirty years …

    😀

  2. Incognito 2
    31 December 2020 at 8:08 pm

    I presume this Post is one in a series and I don’t want to pre-empt the next one(s) by writing a long counter argument or even a counter-post.

    The answer to the title question is ‘it depends’ and ‘yes and no’.

    Let me just say that in my view we must reach back into the past to understand how we got here and why, not how, we are facing the problems of our present. Without proper understanding, we will do the same/similar things when confronted again with the novel and unknown with similar consequences and outcomes. I will also add that I think that many if not all our present problems should be viewed more as a symptom/consequence than as a cause/phenomenon an sich.

    Happy New Year.

    • RedLogix 2.1
      31 December 2020 at 8:31 pm

      Feel free to expand if you wish. I'm acutely aware that the post is an excessively condensed attempt at outlining 200 years of intellectual history; the mere attempt is probably a folly. But at least the comment thread can expand on the numerous points I've glossed over.

      Yes this is a series and I do have a plan, yet good comments can prompt worthwhile diversions … yes

      • Incognito 2.1.1
        31 December 2020 at 8:44 pm

        I’m in two minds and I have not yet fully decided how I will fill in New Year’s Eve.

        Is our intellectual history equivalent to our technological/scientific history, in your view?

        Condensing anything related to human history into 200 or so words comes with serious drawbacks 😉

  3. Robert Guyton 3
    1 January 2021 at 3:01 pm

    The "Progress" you describe is an illusion but may be useful in serving as a model for mankind of what not to do. It had to be done, evidenced by the vigour with which it was pursued, but is/was clearly pathological; we can learn from this realisation. We really are clever rascals, but failed to maintain our balance due to the headiness of our cleverness. There are encouraging signs that we recognise this now, or at least, a significant number of us do. There's no need to "throw the baby out with the bathwater" however; we won't squander the learning nor the technologies we've developed, but will/must apply those and the thinking that led to them, to restoring an equilibrium of sorts, to the environment we inhabit; city, farm, wherever. I've been reading Stephen Harrod Buhner's "Plant intelligence and the Imaginal realm" and in it he talks of Barbarians, bearded, long-haired and un-civilized and the need for more of them/us 🙂 "Barb", he explains, means "beard" and the wearing of those signifies membership in the Barbarian clan and the un-civilized/un-civilizing thinking and behaviour that goes with it. In part, reconnecting with other-than-human life, listening to the advice it offers (ceaselessly, freely) and adjusting our path accordingly. Our progress will be, not back to the future, but in to the imaginal realms, that turn out to be, surprise, surprise, where it's really at 🙂

    • RedLogix 3.1
      1 January 2021 at 4:49 pm

      It had to be done, evidenced by the vigour with which it was pursued, but is/was clearly pathological; we can learn from this realisation.

      I'm not sure humanity's long march into modernity is best described as 'pathological'. Perhaps a better metaphor for the passage we have gone through is childhood …

      • Robert Guyton 3.1.1
        1 January 2021 at 5:37 pm

        "Old Growth" societies say our own is pathological and I agree with them. Pathologies have to be recognised and managed, not eliminated, according to "natural laws" – this happens with organisms in the soil and also applies to ideas, corporations being a striking example. They will appear, we must restrict their influence, protect ourselves from them in order to…progress.

  4. McFlock 4
    1 January 2021 at 4:59 pm

    Leibniz and Kepler made significant steps that we have altered with time, just as Malthus and Marx did.

    Malthus was a move away from the idea that the world is our infinite domain that we can exploit without cost. He wasn't wrong. His specific predictions misjudged the point where doom finally overtakes technology (doom only has to pass once, tech needs to stay ahead all the time).

    Marx moved away from the idea that individual responsibilities and choices and God's judgement were responsible for individual cases of poverty. He documented, thoroughly, that poverty and exploitation were inherent systemic features. His prediction was more hand-wavey, which makes lots of folks think it'll happen tomorrow, and gives them excuses for when today's attempt fails dismally.

    But then neither Leibniz nor Kepler were the final words in their fields, were they?

    Here's the thing: at the moment we're in a race between consumption (and the negative externalities like climate change or resource depletion that consumption causes) and the technological innovation to identify and fix our problems. And recent experience suggests a solid third of any given population are morons who could kill everyone through stupidity if given the chance.

    I have a sense of unease about this situation.

    • RedLogix 4.1
      1 January 2021 at 5:23 pm

      What all of these historic figures have in common is an ability to diagnose at least part of the problem fairly well. I've revisited them partly because much of what they had to say was important at the time.

      On the other hand in all cases their solutions in the social/political domain were pants. Why this should be is one of themes being explored in this series. At least one reason is that it's the job of the future to be dangerous; predictions are notoriously unreliable critters. But there are deeper reasons why; and I'd like to have a go at exploring this.

      Your unease is entirely justified; I may be a pragmatic optimist, but I’m aware the odds of a happy outcome here are not especially good.

      • Robert Guyton 4.1.1
        1 January 2021 at 5:43 pm

        A happy outcome? Are we happy now? There is much that is wondrous in the world, but much too has been lost; is the experience of walking through native forest that is bereft of huia a less happy one that it might have been had we ensured their survival? I think it is. It might be that we'll have to settle for "determined" rather than "happy" as our best-bet state of mind in the times ahead.

        • RedLogix 4.1.1.1
          1 January 2021 at 7:01 pm

          Are we happy now?

          Well if I lean on the old but reliable Maslow hierarchy of needs for a moment, 'happiness' (as opposed to abject misery) sits firmly on a foundation of meeting physical needs. In that respect this past decade has been quite remarkable.

          Extreme poverty has been dramatically reduced, from 18 percent of the global population to just 8.6 percent. More than 158,000 people climbed out of extreme poverty every day for 10 years.

          The child mortality rate was reduced by a third, saving the lives of more than 2.1 million children. Average global life expectancy grew from 69.5 years to 72.6 years. The death rate from indoor air pollution decreased by 19 percent, while deaths from climate-related natural disasters decreased by a third, to just 0.35 per 100,000 persons. The proportion of the population with access to electricity, meanwhile, jumped by over 10 percent, from 79.9 percent in 2010 to 90 percent in 2020.

          These are building blocks essential to eliminating poverty; the left cannot argue against them without betraying it's very purpose. Of course Maslow also informs us that neither material prosperity, nor mere 'happiness' are sufficient by themselves, which is the domain I'm certain you're alluding to.

          • Robert Guyton 4.1.1.1.1
            1 January 2021 at 7:24 pm

            So, it's a numbers thing? If more people are happy, all is well? I guess though, with the human population being what it is, there are also more unhappy people on the planet than at any other time in history – yes?

            • RedLogix 4.1.1.1.1.1
              1 January 2021 at 7:43 pm

              I hear you, I'd suggest the numbers are necessary but are not sufficient in themselves to achieve what we're thinking of.

              I must ask about the "Old Growth" societies you spoke of … it's my sense they would all be very low population density societies; similar to most pre-Industrial hunter gatherers. For much of our pre-agricultural evolution there were barely 10m humans on earth. Sometimes much less.

              Such societies work to quite different constraints to the ones we're facing, and while they may have wisdom and insights well worth discussing; I'm not sure we can model our future on their past.

              • Pat …
                1 January 2021 at 7:56 pm

                Is progress real?…first off you need to define 'progress'

                Id suggest that although Malthus made the mistake of being definitive he will ultimately be proved correct….to argue otherwise is to suggest the bounty of the earth is limitless ….which it obviously is not.

                • Robert Guyton …
                  1 January 2021 at 8:08 pm

                  Hi Pat – I'm going to disagree 🙂

                  I suspect the Universe is, by it's very nature, endlessly and limitlessly, generous and bounteous. I think presently, we are prising the eyes out of the stone statue we think is our due, but in fact, we're bedazzled by trinkets. The true "wealth" is inexhaustible, but we can barely glimpse it through our clouded lenses. Or something… 🙂

                  • Pat …
                    1 January 2021 at 8:16 pm

                    The universe may be….are you suggesting we import from other galaxies?…mot only is that currently impossible , it will likely always be impractical…..meanwhile?

                    • Robert Guyton …
                      1 January 2021 at 8:27 pm

                      Import? We always have: "space dust", meteors, meteorites, sunlight, starlight and waves of all manner and sorts. These "things" add to our wealth, constantly. It's interesting to speculate about what else might have alighted here following a lengthy voyage from afar – microbes comfortably survive deep space travel – our own probes are potentially infecting faraway places even as we discuss the possibility of life cruising the galaxies. Tardigrades do just fine in the challenging conditions of space; who knows what else is winging its way earthward? 🙂

                  • Pat …
                    1 January 2021 at 8:32 pm

                    We consider the world through substantially different prisms i fear Robert, which makes for problematic discussion.

                    We either have a world of limited resource or we do not…imagination doth butter no parsnips

                    • Robert Guyton …
                      1 January 2021 at 8:39 pm

                      Some resources are limited, others are not; perhaps we should be exploring the adoption of those that are limitless?

                      That's my argument.

                    • Pat …
                      1 January 2021 at 8:43 pm

                      Then I pose the same question to you that I posed to Red…what do you consider is the sustainable (human) stocking rate of this planet?

                    • Robert Guyton …
                      1 January 2021 at 8:56 pm

                      I imagine that's a fluid figure, dependent upon a number of constraints/resources/circumstances. The planet seems to have developed systems for modulating/governing populations of all other organisms living here and I expect it's applying it's experience to us. Given our "wild-card" factor; our big-brain intelligence and desire to confound the boundaries, it's probably impossible to put a figure to your question. There are bound to be limits to growth, but those are no longer what they might have seemed a century ago, imo. Food seems to be a limiting factor, and present methods of growing/raising it are disturbingly threatening to the health of the biosphere, but if a simple vat-produced, protein-based goop was made readily available, that constraint would be changed significantly (to be replaced by the restraint of the damaging effects of human waste, but if that was mastered and humanure became a valuable resource, then the situation might be different again. It could be argued that we are already way over capacity, but curiously enough, the planet hasn't collapsed as a result.

                  • Pat …
                    1 January 2021 at 9:11 pm

                    I would suggest that nature did exactly that…pre industrial revolution , and the capacity was below 1 billion.

                    We may take some premium from our "intellect"which I would suggest at best may allow perhaps a doubling, so 2 billion….for as you note there is waste and room for other species to consider, not just calories…for without the 'others' (species) we cannot exist, as much as we may tell ourselves we can

                    • Robert Guyton …
                      1 January 2021 at 10:14 pm

                      I don't think the industrial revolution altered the way nature operates; She's still following the same patterns She always has. I do think though, that we're cruising' for a bruising', though if we were to take advice from species that have been here a lot longer than us, we might learn something to our (mutual) advantage.

                    • Pat …
                      1 January 2021 at 10:21 pm

                      The industrial revolution may not have altered the way 'nature operates' but it certainly altered the way we interact with the natural environment

                    • RedLogix …
                      1 January 2021 at 11:46 pm

                      but it certainly altered the way we interact with the natural environment

                      Actually that's a very good point and one well worth expanding on.

                      Modern urban humans certainly have an outsized impact in terms of CO2 and mineral resource use, yet in terms of land area they're far less intensive than their rural subsistence farming cousins. And people who rely on firewood and dung for fuel may have no CO2 footprint, but their impact on natural environments in terms of deforestation and habitat loss is very significant.

                • RedLogix …
                  1 January 2021 at 8:10 pm

                  Malthus was proven wrong on both sides of his argument; it turns out that neither human population was going to grow without limit, nor is our ability to innovate and discover new resources obviously limited either.

                  And even in his own time this should have been obvious; but apocalyptic thinking has a long track record of seducing otherwise sensible people.

                  • Pat …
                    1 January 2021 at 8:17 pm

                    Then you misread Malthus….suggest you revisit

                  • Pat …
                    1 January 2021 at 8:33 pm

                    What do you consider the (human) carrying capacity of the planet ?

                    • RedLogix …
                      1 January 2021 at 8:50 pm

                      At present we produce around 25% more food than we can eat. (Much of the surplus going rather pointlessly into bio-fuels.) So that isn't the constraint.

                      CO2 is the other urgent limit, but then dealing to this is just a matter of technical choices.

                      Various mineral resources and environmental sinks, along with land use and oceanic pollution and threatened bio-diversity are also probable limits. Yet each of these do have technically feasible solutions.

                      Or another way to look at this; pre-agricultural humans seemed to have a carrying capacity of maybe 100m (although life was so precarious they never got past 10m), pre-industrial humans around 1b, and fossil fuels have gotten us comfortably to around 10b … each a carrying capacity increase of 10 fold. On what basis are you going to rule out the possibility us repeating the same astonishing feat?

                    • Pat …
                      1 January 2021 at 10:14 pm

                      "…And with not too many immediate concerns about what tomorrow will bring."

                      Id suggest that is a egocentric view not shared by by the majority of the worlds inhabitants and increasingly even those in first world nations

                    • RedLogix …
                      1 January 2021 at 11:16 pm

                      Id suggest that is a egocentric view not shared by by the majority of the worlds inhabitants

                      Compared to what? All the data I've repeatedly presented shows that the large majority of people living now have far fewer immediate concerns than did their ancestors who lived 200 years ago. This doesn't mean the world is trouble free, far from it, but if you are over the age of 40, consider yourself fortunate to be alive and well enough in this modern era to have the luxury of worrying about climate change.

                  • Pat …
                    1 January 2021 at 9:06 pm

                    "… and fossil fuels have gotten us comfortably to around 10b …"

                    Comfortably?…we are destroying our only home.

                    The industrial revolution began a mere 10 or so generations ago, a blink of an eye and in that short time we have bought the planet to the brink of uninhabitability for our species…as Malthus predicted we have grown our population to the point of collapse…and collapse it will.

                    Or you can make the case for how 10 plus billion humans will inhabit this planet without destroying it…and unknowns and unprovens are not an option because human beings dont survive more than a few weeks without food.

                  • Pat …
                    1 January 2021 at 9:19 pm

                    Apparently it is,,,and has been for 50 years .

                    Blind optimism in 'human capacity' is our biggest handicap and is downright dangerous…emphasis on the'blind'

                    • RedLogix …
                      1 January 2021 at 10:01 pm

                      Blind optimism in 'human capacity' is our biggest handicap and is downright dangerous.

                      Yet this same 'dangerous' capacity has enabled you write this out in a magical typing machine, from the comfort of a warm dry home with a full stomach. And with not too many immediate concerns about what tomorrow will bring.

                      Maybe that's the problem; our ancient psyche needs something to worry about.

              • Robert Guyton …
                1 January 2021 at 8:10 pm

                What constraints are we working to?

                Hasn't it always been, self-restraint?

                • RedLogix …
                  1 January 2021 at 8:29 pm

                  I do believe we have reached somewhere close to the innovation limits of fossil fuels. While the atmospheric CO2 limit is real and urgent, perhaps it's not the most important. There is a good argument that the very pace of technology itself has in many ways slowed down, that two hundred years of dramatic innovation has finally flattened out in the past decade.

                  There is of course an immense amount of research and many promising ideas being pursued, but there is a real sense of diminishing returns about it all. Fossil fuels have been wonderful, but quite inexorably their EROI is diminishing. This makes sense when you think of technology as essentially 'applied energy'; viewed like this limits on energy inevitably become limits on technology.

                  (The counter idea that we could develop a high tech, low energy density society is an intriguing, appealing idea, but sadly one with no obvious precedent. On reflection I think I may explore this in a future post.)

                  • Robert Guyton …
                    1 January 2021 at 8:41 pm

                    I think it's our imaginations that are constrained and we are feeling the pinch.

                    • RedLogix …
                      1 January 2021 at 8:52 pm

                      Yes; more than anything else modernism has been an intensely materialistic enterprise. And the very definition of materialism is the inability to imagine the invisible realities.

                    • Robert Guyton …
                      1 January 2021 at 9:02 pm

                      Indeed. There is, however, an awful lot of imagining invisible realities going on now – at least, along the paths I stumble 🙂

                      "Old Growth" societies do not view imagination in the way we do – as something frivolous and inconsequential. Rather, they see it as a powerful thinking "implement" that brings tangible results and is to be regarded most highly. Einstein, Fukuoka and others commented similarly.

  5. Stuart Munro 5
    1 January 2021 at 9:23 pm

    The abject failure of the marxist projects in Russia and China demoralised the anti-capitalists,

    Not really, no. Neither of those totalitarian regimes pursued a left agenda with any particular rigour. It's fair to say that the Okhrana had more influence on either state than Marx, for all that his prescription was full of inconsistencies. It sure demoralized the NZ Labour Party though – their great leap into vapid far-right bullshit coinciding with the last gasp of soviet despotism – almost as if their late-Stalinist God had just failed them too.

    As for progress, it happens, but not neatly, and certainly not by measures as crude as GDP growth. Consider the laser – the dreamt of future blasting weapon of the 1950s gradually migrated into crude industrial cutters, eventually becoming part of the ubiquitous storage and retrieval of contemporary computers. It takes half a century or more for each technology to begin to find a place, much less a sustainable or benign place, in an evolving society, and often the potential of such technologies is subverted by monied interests.

    Post-Modernism only really muddied the waters, it was hardly news that reigning narratives enjoyed no monopoly on truth. But pomos stymy the arrival of the long overdue new synthesis. Hutcheson (and Kant) reckoned that things like truth or justice were determinable by humans, and that is was important to try. The pomos take that game off the table. The triumph of neo-liberalism is a pomo outcome – ceasing to strive for truth and justice, our political leaders, like the corrupt Roman elites before them, only care about their investment portfolios. Thus our culture has lost its way, and worse, considers that no way is possible. It is not a belief conducive to progress.

    • RedLogix 5.1
      1 January 2021 at 9:43 pm

      In 2001 I had the remarkable privilege of visiting not only the location where the Czar and his family were first imprisoned and then shot, but also more intriguingly the location inside Russia where the first Communists met to plot their revolution. It's a small rocky hill maybe 120m high with a natural amphitheatre (like a volcanic crater but it's not) at the summit. It was in those times far enough from the city and naturally private so that it was a good place for Sverdlovsk and his comrades to conspire. And we know he was in direct contact with Marx and Engels … the people who ran the October Revolution knew exactly whose ideas they were following.

      We also know from Solzhenitsyn that the internal purges and political authoritarianism was baked in from the very start. Stalin merely expanded on the precedent. The Terror was not of course what Marx had intended, he assumed that once the working class had obtained power that all social antagonisms and exploitation would magically end; and in this he was proven dramatically wrong. The very revolution necessary to implement his social order ensured the most ruthless and cruel would obtain all political power. Every single time.

      I do agree on your point about the necessary maturing process for technology; inevitably it's easier to find destructive purposes for new energy forms than constructive ones. But as you say time tends to favour the latter.

      And also I agree on your take on neo-liberalism … one of what I'm going to class as the three great extremist materialist mistakes of the 20th century, marxism, fascism and neo-liberalism.

      • arkie 5.1.1
        1 January 2021 at 10:09 pm

        Sverdlovsk and his comrades to conspire. And we know he was in direct contact with Marx and Engels

        I assume you mean Yakov Sverdlov. Seeing as he was born the 2 years after Marx's death and was only 10 when Engels died I'm not sure how we know of this 'direct contact'.

        • RedLogix 5.1.1.1
          1 January 2021 at 10:54 pm

          I was relying on a 20yr old remembered conversation with the person who took me to the spot. Obviously Sverdlov was not in direct personal contact, but the evidence is that he was a very close student of Marx and all the pre-revolutionary intellectuals.

          Given his very prominent role in the Revolution and that he's regarded perhaps the first head of the Soviet state, his role and connection to Marx really can't be discounted.

          • arkie 5.1.1.1.1
            1 January 2021 at 11:03 pm

            he was a very close student of Marx

            And Lenin.

            Who was far more salient influence on the development of the Soviet states seeing as he was a direct participant in both the revolution and the leadership of the USSR.

      • solkta 5.1.2
        1 January 2021 at 10:17 pm

        And we know he was in direct contact with Marx and Engels

        Marx died in 1883. [RL: Deleted. No more warnings.]

        • RedLogix 5.1.2.1
          1 January 2021 at 10:38 pm

          Ah crap memory. Sverdlov did indeed live after Marx, but is absolutely on record as being a direct disciple of Marx.

          Sverdlov became a major activist and speaker in Nizhny Novgorod. In 1906, Sverdlov was arrested and held in the Yekaterinburg prison until his release. During his time in prison, Sverdlov continued to educate himself and others, reading Lenin, Marx, Kautsky, Heine, and more. Sverdlov attempted to live by the motto: "I put books to the test of life, and life to the test of books."

          He's also the instigator of the infamous kulak policy that later directly led to the Ukrainian famine.

          • arkie 5.1.2.1.1
            1 January 2021 at 10:55 pm

            One would think the outcomes of the October revolution and the Soviet state were more attributable to Lenin's (and later Stalin's) ideas than Sverdlov being 'direct disciple of Marx'.

          • solkta 5.1.2.1.2
            1 January 2021 at 11:05 pm

            [RL: Take a break from this thread. You’ve had your warning.]

      • McFlock 5.1.3
        1 January 2021 at 10:49 pm

        The Terror was not of course what Marx had intended, he assumed that once the working class had obtained power that all social antagonisms and exploitation would magically end;

        Nope.

        When looking at the specifics of a transition from capitalism to communism, Marx included that there would be a transition period (dictatorship of the proletariat) but that the transition might not succeed the first time and the DoP would slide back into a capitalist or feudal power structure – same exploitation, new people up top.

        So in a way he predicted exactly what would happen, but it's also the fudge that makes his predictions irrefutable. Like every messiah is the second coming until it turns out no, that guy was a fraud, this new guy is actually the second coming. There's a boolean outcome with no context to assess how the prediction is coming along (although messiahs need to conform with prophecies that are canon – that's why Luke has Jesus being born back in Bethlehem, cynics suggest).

        • RedLogix 5.1.3.1
          1 January 2021 at 11:06 pm

          Some time back I outlined the four fundamental premises of Marxist thinking:

          1. The idea that the elites would always oppress the working masses

          2. The false consciousness which ensured anyone who benefited from this exploitation would find a way to justify perpetuating the system

          3. The dictatorship of the proletariat, which if you read the link you provided clearly anticipates the need to violently overthrow the existing order

          4. And once this had been done ruthlessly and frequently enough, somehow quite magically all class antagonisms would disappear and a new utopian workers paradise would make all the prior suffering justified.

          OK so that's a big simplification, but it more or less covers the process off.

          • arkie 5.1.3.1.1
            1 January 2021 at 11:29 pm

            May I suggest some holiday reading? Marxists.org has works by a wide variety of writers available to read online, 720 writers in fact! In 62 languages! All for free товарищ!

            • RedLogix 5.1.3.1.1.1
              1 January 2021 at 11:38 pm

              Again if you have a point to make, make it here. Don't demand I go away and do your homework for you.

              I'm perfectly aware the above four points are a simplification and there many dusty tomes of marxist thinking they leave untouched. Yet in many ways the essence of the ideology is quite simple.

              Or as the first toast of the evening almost always was: К свободе

              • arkie …
                1 January 2021 at 11:56 pm

                I am not demanding anything. Nor do I have 'homework' that requires your assistance. Seeing as you seem to be relying on misremembered 20 year old conversations I was pointing out a place where one could read the actual writings of Marx and other thinkers instead of your particular interpretation and simplification.

              • McFlock …
                2 January 2021 at 12:25 am

                3 ignores the allowances Marx made that violent revolution might not always be required. From the reference 22 of the comment to that effect in the wiki link I provided:

                "You know that the institutions, mores, and traditions of various countries must be taken into consideration, and we do not deny that there are countries – such as America, England, and if I were more familiar with your institutions, I would perhaps also add Holland – where the workers can attain their goal by peaceful means. This being the case, we must also recognise the fact that in most countries on the Continent the lever of our revolution must be force; it is force to which we must some day appeal to erect the rule of labour." La Liberté Speech delivered by Karl Marx on 8 September 1872, in Amsterdam

                4 is just a stupid misrepresentation. There's enough woo in his predictions (and outright hypocrisy in his character) to oppose Marx without making shit up.

                And I'm not sure how often Marx made toasts in Russian.

                • RedLogix …
                  2 January 2021 at 8:21 am

                  Like arkie you've every right to object to my very simplified marxist schema, but what you haven't done is demonstrate where it is wrong. The first two points may be crudely drawn, but seem accurate enough.

                  The third was really confirmed by your own reference, and while a 'peaceful marxist' revolution may be theoretically possible, no such thing ever spontaneously occurred in practice.

                  And yes my description of the end goal of 'glorious revolution' may be pointed and somewhat sarcastic; but then the gap between the proposed ideal of communism and the stack of corpses it managed to pile up in the 20th century does rather invite it don't you think?

                  • arkie …
                    2 January 2021 at 11:20 am

                    but what you haven't done is demonstrate where it is wrong

                    Now Red, wouldn't that be 'doing your homework for you'?

                    Marxism is a method of socioeconomic analysis that uses a materialist interpretation of historical development, better known as historical materialism, to understand class relations and social conflict as well as a dialectical perspective to view social transformation. It originates from the works of 19th-century German philosophers Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels. As Marxism has developed over time into various branches and schools of thought, there is currently no single definitive Marxist theory.

                    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marxism

                    • RedLogix …
                      2 January 2021 at 11:44 am

                      If you want a constructive response then address a point in the OP or comment thread directly. Lazy open-ended requests to go away and read entire tomes from prior centuries that few people read, or some unspecified selection from 720 writers on a website will be treated with the chilly response they deserve.

                      Yes your quoted para above is fancy way to describe marxism, but I'm not sure how it addresses the simple four point schema I outlined above. Does Marx not talk about 'the oppression of the workers', 'false consciousness', and the 'dictatorship of the proletariat'? Did he not advocate for the elimination of private property and the state ownership of 'the means of production'? As far as I'm aware these are all well understood features of communism.

                      Pretending they aren't 'real marxism' and that I have to spend months reading up on 'what Marx really meant' seems to me an evasive shifting of the goalposts to say the least.

                    • arkie …
                      2 January 2021 at 12:20 pm

                      Marx said a lot of things, some contradicted others. Famously remarking 'what is certain is that I myself am not a Marxist'.

                      I'm not pretending, evading, or shifting goalposts, I offered you Marxists.org as a way to actually read Marx and see the huge variety of Marxist-aligned thinking. I quoted the first para of the Marxism wiki page to show how relevant to the OP the work of Marx and Engels actually is. Your hostility to engaging with the actual work and over-simplification nay misrepresentation of it betrays a bias that prevents productive discussion.

                    • RedLogix …
                      2 January 2021 at 1:14 pm

                      Yes I am entirely biased against marxism. And equally so against neo-liberalism and fascism.

                      The reason is relatively simple; all three represent an otherwise legitimate political idea, that unmoored by materialism from ethical constraint, go too damn far.

                    • arkie …
                      2 January 2021 at 2:06 pm

                      Then we shall leave it at that, seeing as you are so determined to maintain your fallacious opinions.

                  • McFlock …
                    2 January 2021 at 3:04 pm

                    1 is blatantly true: elites always oppress those underneath them.

                    2 is to some degree represented by you believing your phrasing of 4 is at all realistic.

                    My link clearly showed that Marx did not believe violent revolution would be needed in every country. So 3 is (at best) misleadingly imprecise.

                    And as for "don't you think", no, I don't think that. For the basic reason that many of the "communist" movements in the 20C had as much to do with Marx as the crusades had to do with Jesus.

Recent Comments

Recent Posts

  • Modern insurance law will protect Kiwi households
    The Government is modernising insurance law to better protect Kiwis and provide security in the event of a disaster, Commerce and Consumer Affairs Minister Andrew Bayly announced today. “These reforms are long overdue. New Zealand’s insurance law is complicated and dated, some of which is more than 100 years old. ...
    BeehiveBy beehive.govt.nz
    12 hours ago

  • Government recommits to equal pay
    The coalition Government is refreshing its approach to supporting pay equity claims as time-limited funding for the Pay Equity Taskforce comes to an end, Public Service Minister Nicola Willis says.  “Three years ago, the then-government introduced changes to the Equal Pay Act to support pay equity bargaining. The changes were ...
    BeehiveBy beehive.govt.nz
    15 hours ago

  • Transforming how our children learn to read
    Structured literacy will change the way New Zealand children learn to read - improving achievement and setting students up for success, Education Minister Erica Stanford says.  “Being able to read and write is a fundamental life skill that too many young people are missing out on. Recent data shows that ...
    BeehiveBy beehive.govt.nz
    16 hours ago

  • NZ not backing down in Canada dairy dispute
    Trade Minister Todd McClay says Canada’s refusal to comply in full with a CPTPP trade dispute ruling in our favour over dairy trade is cynical and New Zealand has no intention of backing down. Mr McClay said he has asked for urgent legal advice in respect of our ‘next move’ ...
    BeehiveBy beehive.govt.nz
    18 hours ago

  • Stronger oversight for our most vulnerable children
    The rights of our children and young people will be enhanced by changes the coalition Government will make to strengthen oversight of the Oranga Tamariki system, including restoring a single Children’s Commissioner. “The Government is committed to delivering better public services that care for our most at-risk young people and ...
    BeehiveBy beehive.govt.nz
    20 hours ago

  • Streamlining Building Consent Changes
    The Government is making it easier for minor changes to be made to a building consent so building a home is easier and more affordable, Building and Construction Minister Chris Penk says.      “The coalition Government is focused on making it easier and cheaper to build homes so we can ...
    BeehiveBy beehive.govt.nz
    1 day ago

  • Minister acknowledges passing of Sir Robert Martin (KNZM)
    New Zealand lost a true legend when internationally renowned disability advocate Sir Robert Martin (KNZM) passed away at his home in Whanganui last night, Disabilities Issues Minister Louise Upston says. “Our Government’s thoughts are with his wife Lynda, family and community, those he has worked with, the disability community in ...
    BeehiveBy beehive.govt.nz
    2 days ago

  • Speech to New Zealand Institute of International Affairs, Parliament – Annual Lecture: Challenges ...
    Good evening –   Before discussing the challenges and opportunities facing New Zealand’s foreign policy, we’d like to first acknowledge the New Zealand Institute of International Affairs. You have contributed to debates about New Zealand foreign policy over a long period of time, and we thank you for hosting us.  ...
    BeehiveBy beehive.govt.nz
    2 days ago

  • Accelerating airport security lines
    From today, passengers travelling internationally from Auckland Airport will be able to keep laptops and liquids in their carry-on bags for security screening thanks to new technology, Transport Minister Simeon Brown says. “Creating a more efficient and seamless travel experience is important for holidaymakers and businesses, enabling faster movement through ...
    BeehiveBy beehive.govt.nz
    2 days ago

  • Community hui to talk about kina barrens
    People with an interest in the health of Northland’s marine ecosystems are invited to a public meeting to discuss how to deal with kina barrens, Oceans and Fisheries Minister Shane Jones says. Mr Jones will lead the discussion, which will take place on Friday, 10 May, at Awanui Hotel in ...
    BeehiveBy beehive.govt.nz
    2 days ago

  • Kiwi exporters win as NZ-EU FTA enters into force
    Kiwi exporters are $100 million better off today with the NZ EU FTA entering into force says Trade Minister Todd McClay. “This is all part of our plan to grow the economy. New Zealand's prosperity depends on international trade, making up 60 per cent of the country’s total economic activity. ...
    BeehiveBy beehive.govt.nz
    2 days ago

  • Mining resurgence a welcome sign
    There are heartening signs that the extractive sector is once again becoming an attractive prospect for investors and a source of economic prosperity for New Zealand, Resources Minister Shane Jones says. “The beginnings of a resurgence in extractive industries are apparent in media reports of the sector in the past ...
    BeehiveBy beehive.govt.nz
    2 days ago

  • Ō-Rākau Remembrance Bill passes first reading
    The return of the historic Ō-Rākau battle site to the descendants of those who fought there moved one step closer today with the first reading of Te Pire mō Ō-Rākau, Te Pae o Maumahara / The Ō-Rākau Remembrance Bill. The Bill will entrust the 9.7-hectare battle site, five kilometres west ...
    BeehiveBy beehive.govt.nz
    3 days ago

  • Government to boost public EV charging network
    Energy Minister Simeon Brown has announced 25 new high-speed EV charging hubs along key routes between major urban centres and outlined the Government’s plan to supercharge New Zealand’s EV infrastructure.  The hubs will each have several chargers and be capable of charging at least four – and up to 10 ...
    BeehiveBy beehive.govt.nz
    3 days ago

  • Residential Property Managers Bill to not progress
    The coalition Government will not proceed with the previous Government’s plans to regulate residential property managers, Housing Minister Chris Bishop says. “I have written to the Chairperson of the Social Services and Community Committee to inform him that the Government does not intend to support the Residential Property Managers Bill ...
    BeehiveBy beehive.govt.nz
    3 days ago

  • Independent review into disability support services
    The Government has announced an independent review into the disability support system funded by the Ministry of Disabled People – Whaikaha. Disability Issues Minister Louise Upston says the review will look at what can be done to strengthen the long-term sustainability of Disability Support Services to provide disabled people and ...
    BeehiveBy beehive.govt.nz
    3 days ago

  • Justice Minister updates UN on law & order plan
    Justice Minister Paul Goldsmith has attended the Universal Periodic Review in Geneva and outlined the Government’s plan to restore law and order. “Speaking to the United Nations Human Rights Council provided us with an opportunity to present New Zealand’s human rights progress, priorities, and challenges, while responding to issues and ...
    BeehiveBy beehive.govt.nz
    3 days ago

  • Ending emergency housing motels in Rotorua
    The Government and Rotorua Lakes Council are committed to working closely together to end the use of contracted emergency housing motels in Rotorua. Associate Minister of Housing (Social Housing) Tama Potaka says the Government remains committed to ending the long-term use of contracted emergency housing motels in Rotorua by the ...
    BeehiveBy beehive.govt.nz
    3 days ago

  • Trade Minister travels to Riyadh, OECD, and Dubai
    Trade Minister Todd McClay heads overseas today for high-level trade talks in the Gulf region, and a key OECD meeting in Paris. Mr McClay will travel to Riyadh to meet with counterparts from Saudi Arabia and the Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC). “New Zealand’s goods and services exports to the Gulf region ...
    BeehiveBy beehive.govt.nz
    4 days ago

  • Education priorities focused on lifting achievement
    Education Minister Erica Stanford has outlined six education priorities to deliver a world-leading education system that sets Kiwi kids up for future success. “I’m putting ambition, achievement and outcomes at the heart of our education system. I want every child to be inspired and engaged in their learning so they ...
    BeehiveBy beehive.govt.nz
    4 days ago

  • NZTA App first step towards digital driver licence
    The new NZ Transport Agency (NZTA) App is a secure ‘one stop shop’ to provide the services drivers need, Transport Minister Simeon Brown and Digitising Government Minister Judith Collins say.  “The NZTA App will enable an easier way for Kiwis to pay for Vehicle Registration and Road User Charges (RUC). ...
    BeehiveBy beehive.govt.nz
    4 days ago

  • Supporting whānau out of emergency housing
    Whānau with tamariki growing up in emergency housing motels will be prioritised for social housing starting this week, says Associate Housing Minister Tama Potaka. “Giving these whānau a better opportunity to build healthy stable lives for themselves and future generations is an essential part of the Government’s goal of reducing ...
    BeehiveBy beehive.govt.nz
    4 days ago

  • Tribute to Dave O'Sullivan
    Racing Minister Winston Peters has paid tribute to an icon of the industry with the recent passing of Dave O’Sullivan (OBE). “Our sympathies are with the O’Sullivan family with the sad news of Dave O’Sullivan’s recent passing,” Mr Peters says. “His contribution to racing, initially as a jockey and then ...
    BeehiveBy beehive.govt.nz
    4 days ago

  • Speech – Eid al-Fitr
    Assalaamu alaikum, greetings to you all. Eid Mubarak, everyone! I want to extend my warmest wishes to you and everyone celebrating this joyous occasion. It is a pleasure to be here. I have enjoyed Eid celebrations at Parliament before, but this is my first time joining you as the Minister ...
    BeehiveBy beehive.govt.nz
    4 days ago

  • Government saves access to medicines
    Associate Health Minister David Seymour has announced Pharmac’s largest ever budget of $6.294 billion over four years, fixing a $1.774 billion fiscal cliff.    “Access to medicines is a crucial part of many Kiwis’ lives. We’ve committed to a budget allocation of $1.774 billion over four years so Kiwis are ...
    BeehiveBy beehive.govt.nz
    4 days ago

  • Pharmac Chair appointed
    Hon Paula Bennett has been appointed as member and chair of the Pharmac board, Associate Health Minister David Seymour announced today. "Pharmac is a critical part of New Zealand's health system and plays a significant role in ensuring that Kiwis have the best possible access to medicines,” says Mr Seymour. ...
    BeehiveBy beehive.govt.nz
    5 days ago

  • Taking action on Fetal Alcohol Spectrum Disorder
    Hundreds of New Zealand families affected by Fetal Alcohol Spectrum Disorder (FASD) will benefit from a new Government focus on prevention and treatment, says Health Minister Dr Shane Reti. “We know FASD is a leading cause of preventable intellectual and neurodevelopmental disability in New Zealand,” Dr Reti says.  “Every day, ...
    BeehiveBy beehive.govt.nz
    6 days ago

  • New sports complex opens in Kaikohe
    Regional Development Minister Shane Jones today attended the official opening of Kaikohe’s new $14.7 million sports complex. “The completion of the Kaikohe Multi Sports Complex is a fantastic achievement for the Far North,” Mr Jones says. “This facility not only fulfils a long-held dream for local athletes, but also creates ...
    BeehiveBy beehive.govt.nz
    6 days ago

  • Diplomacy needed more than ever
    Foreign Minister Winston Peters’ engagements in Türkiye this week underlined the importance of diplomacy to meet growing global challenges.    “Returning to the Gallipoli Peninsula to represent New Zealand at Anzac commemorations was a sombre reminder of the critical importance of diplomacy for de-escalating conflicts and easing tensions,” Mr Peters ...
    BeehiveBy beehive.govt.nz
    6 days ago

  • Anzac Commemorative Address, Buttes New British Cemetery Belgium
    Ambassador Millar, Burgemeester, Vandepitte, Excellencies, military representatives, distinguished guests, ladies and gentlemen – good morning and welcome to this sacred Anzac Day dawn service.  It is an honour to be here on behalf of the Government and people of New Zealand at Buttes New British Cemetery, Polygon Wood – a deeply ...
    BeehiveBy beehive.govt.nz
    7 days ago

  • Anzac Commemorative Address – NZ National Service, Chunuk Bair
    Distinguished guests -   It is an honour to return once again to this site which, as the resting place for so many of our war-dead, has become a sacred place for generations of New Zealanders.   Our presence here and at the other special spaces of Gallipoli is made ...
    BeehiveBy beehive.govt.nz
    1 week ago

  • Anzac Commemorative Address – Dawn Service, Gallipoli, Türkiye
    Mai ia tawhiti pamamao, te moana nui a Kiwa, kua tae whakaiti mai matou, ki to koutou papa whenua. No koutou te tapuwae, no matou te tapuwae, kua honoa pumautia.   Ko nga toa kua hinga nei, o te Waipounamu, o te Ika a Maui, he okioki tahi me o ...
    BeehiveBy beehive.govt.nz
    1 week ago

  • PM announces changes to portfolios
    Paul Goldsmith will take on responsibility for the Media and Communications portfolio, while Louise Upston will pick up the Disability Issues portfolio, Prime Minister Christopher Luxon announced today. “Our Government is relentlessly focused on getting New Zealand back on track. As issues change in prominence, I plan to adjust Ministerial ...
    BeehiveBy beehive.govt.nz
    1 week ago

  • New catch limits for unique fishery areas
    Recreational catch limits will be reduced in areas of Fiordland and the Chatham Islands to help keep those fisheries healthy and sustainable, Oceans and Fisheries Minister Shane Jones says. The lower recreational daily catch limits for a range of finfish and shellfish species caught in the Fiordland Marine Area and ...
    BeehiveBy beehive.govt.nz
    1 week ago

  • Minister welcomes hydrogen milestone
    Energy Minister Simeon Brown has welcomed an important milestone in New Zealand’s hydrogen future, with the opening of the country’s first network of hydrogen refuelling stations in Wiri. “I want to congratulate the team at Hiringa Energy and its partners K one W one (K1W1), Mitsui & Co New Zealand ...
    BeehiveBy beehive.govt.nz
    1 week ago

  • Urgent changes to system through first RMA Amendment Bill
    The coalition Government is delivering on its commitment to improve resource management laws and give greater certainty to consent applicants, with a Bill to amend the Resource Management Act (RMA) expected to be introduced to Parliament next month. RMA Reform Minister Chris Bishop has today outlined the first RMA Amendment ...
    BeehiveBy beehive.govt.nz
    1 week ago

  • Overseas decommissioning models considered
    Overseas models for regulating the oil and gas sector, including their decommissioning regimes, are being carefully scrutinised as a potential template for New Zealand’s own sector, Resources Minister Shane Jones says. The Coalition Government is focused on rebuilding investor confidence in New Zealand’s energy sector as it looks to strengthen ...
    BeehiveBy beehive.govt.nz
    1 week ago

  • Release of North Island Severe Weather Event Inquiry
    Emergency Management and Recovery Minister Mark Mitchell has today released the Report of the Government Inquiry into the response to the North Island Severe Weather Events. “The report shows that New Zealand’s emergency management system is not fit-for-purpose and there are some significant gaps we need to address,” Mr Mitchell ...
    BeehiveBy beehive.govt.nz
    1 week ago

  • Justice Minister to attend Human Rights Council
    Justice Minister Paul Goldsmith is today travelling to Europe where he’ll update the United Nations Human Rights Council on the Government’s work to restore law and order.  “Attending the Universal Periodic Review in Geneva provides us with an opportunity to present New Zealand’s human rights progress, priorities, and challenges, while ...
    BeehiveBy beehive.govt.nz
    2 weeks ago

  • Patterson reopens world’s largest wool scouring facility
    Associate Agriculture Minister, Mark Patterson, formally reopened the world’s largest wool processing facility today in Awatoto, Napier, following a $50 million rebuild and refurbishment project. “The reopening of this facility will significantly lift the economic opportunities available to New Zealand’s wool sector, which already accounts for 20 per cent of ...
    BeehiveBy beehive.govt.nz
    2 weeks ago

Page generated in The Standard by Wordpress at 2024-05-02T18:08:37+00:00