‘Progress has a price’ quipped a fellow blogger recently. Now, before we proceed to smash the commonly held assumption that ‘Progress’ exists as a universal, objective entity recognizable by all, let us first make clear what one means when referring to such a notion.
Among the many other definitions and meanings associated with the word, there is ‘progress’ as defined by the dominant socio-political ideology of the era. Thanks to capitalism and the ‘free market’, the world is currently categorised into three ‘sub-worlds’; First, Second and Third. When deciding what category nation X belongs to, we must consider the extent of nation X’s industrial development, it is by this factor only that nation X can gauge how large a voice it has when it comes to international matters and how large a say it has on its own, supposedly sovereign, domestic matters. History has taught us thus far that industrially advanced nations tend to interfere with the sovereignty of industrially inferior nations. Many confuse superior economic strength these days with ‘progressive’ or ‘progressed’, and unstable or weak economic performance for ‘regressive’, ‘static’, etc.
So, ‘progress has a price’. If you want Apple Macs and fast cars, you’re gonna have to fight for them. To speak of her torment at witnessing the poverty and degradation of her people will only render Ms. Y open to the accusation that her people are a lazy breed; far too willing to accept the charity of others rather than build and maintain a stable economy. What is more, the imperialist invasion and occupation of her particular society, and the subsequent assimilation of her forefathers into a system of bondage and extortion, whilst bad in the short-term, ought to be seen as good for her as a product of the long-run. The West may well have robbed her culture of its dignity and self-worth, but at least these days she and the overwhelming majority of her peers can work 9 to 5 for the minimum wage and generally enjoy the luxuries of a society now addicted to commodities.
.jpg?t=20120527181101)
Article comments
— go to most recent comments1 - Dave Nalle
Amazingly wrongheaded and biased, but you do bring out one important basic point. If the role of 'imperialism' is as you describe it, then we're on solid ground agreeing that 'imperialism' is not an appropriate term to apply to America's foreign policy.
Dave
2 - Graham McKnight
Every argument is biased. Providing me with examples of my 'wrongheadedness' would be nice though.
3 - Doug Hunter
You left out the part about rampant poverty, bread lines, and massive genocide, part and parcel of the communist sickness.
How can you be a cheerleader for the flawed ideology that has resulted in most of the greatest genocides in human history?
I suppose that wasn't "true communism" (I hear a similiar argument from religious nuts all the time)
4 - Graham McKnight
Don't be confusing Marx with those despot dictators who abused his name and ideology. Lenin, Stalin, Khrushchev, Mao etc; these men had no true affection for communism. I suggest reading Jung Chang & Jon Halliday's 'Mao: The Unknown Story', to give you a better understanding of just how the communist ideology was distorted into the abomination that many people consider it to be.
Besides, my use of communism in this article served merely to demonstrate that even radical changes in society's social order would not constitute 'progress'. Progress is a bankrupt excuse given by despot Administrations for the many families torn apart, the many soldiers and civilians murdered in an unjust war of imperialist aggression, the tightening grip of Privately funded public services, etc etc.
5 - Arch Conservative
If amnesty and immunity for millions of law breakers is progress then I say fuck progress.
Today is a very sad day in America. Every one of those rat bastards in Washington, both Republican and Democrat who voted for this horrendous amnesty package deserves to be shot dead and left to rot where they fall.
Fuck all of them and may they burn in hell for eternity for what they have done!
6 - Graham McKnight
If you are refering to the issue over immigration into America and non-documented workers, the amnesty on deportation and detainment will actually do your imperial economy more good than bad. Immigrants have long served as a scape goat for many of the difficult issues facing your nation, when all they really want to do is work for almost any pitiful wage granted to them by any employer willing to subvert the system and dodge some taxes.
7 - Arch Conservative
Hey Graham cut the shit OK?
It's illegal immigration and illegal aliens not immigration and undocumented workers. Take your semantic propaganda and go peddle it somewhere else ya jackass!
8 - Zedd
Graham
Brilliant!! I have been pondering this idea for sometime. Change and evolution has always been expected in human societies.
Perhaps the obsession with progressing became pronounced during the indistrial revolution as new inventions popped up regularly. As notions like Social Darwinism took hold, forcing humanity to want proof of their superiority, the need for people to see themselves as progressing became important.
9 - STM
Ha, I love it when people make apologies for an ideology that has been rightfully consigned to the dustbin of history. Suggesting that the ideas of Lenin et al were not representative of the true philosophies of Marx is a nonsense.
I'll agree on Stalin, but the others didn't deviate too far from the path, even if they have inflicted upon their followers the cult of personality. Of course, as laid out by Marx, it's inevitable the path led where it did.
Besides, Marxist ideology is archaic and written for different centuries when workers really had no rights and imperialism wore no disguise.
Better to fight for the rights of workers under the existing system in a productivity trade-off with employers that guarantees collective bargaining, higher wages and better working conditions, and thus better living conditions and high standards of living overall.
The real price of progress is the lost wages of workers who've been willing to stand up to employers and governments by withholding their labour in order to earn enough money to guarantee themselves a better and more equitable slice of the pie they've helped produce.
10 - STM
But I must say, I am a fan of Gnome Chompsky
11 - Zedd
Graham
When you quoted Marx, you should have realized the the focus would veer from the article to Marx himself.
Your audience consists of baby boomers mainly, a group that was the most indoctrinated about communism and the symbols of communism. Don't expect flexibility from this lot. Marx bad, us good. His analysis will not be considered no matter what.
12 - STM
Zedd wrote: "Your audience consists of baby boomers mainly, a group that was the most indoctrinated about communism and the symbols of communism. Don't expect flexibility from this lot."
Well, and this isn't directed at Graham, but at least we've actually done some things ...
And I still love Gnome Chompsky.
13 - Graham McKnight
Thanks for the advice Zedd. Appreciated.
14 - Zedd
STM
Not saying that boomers are bad for believing what they do. Just making an observation.
Two generations before you, communists weren't bad, a generation and a half after you, no one cares.
15 - Clavos
a generation and a half after you, no one cares.
Except for those still suffering in communist regimes, e.g.: Cuba, North Korea.
16 - Graham McKnight
Clavos, Cuba and North Korea are dictatorships that places pride in the nation before pride in the working class etc, they are communist only in name.
17 - Doug Hunter
If this piece isn't an advertisement for communism I'm not sure I get the point. You claim that a shift would not be 'progress', but your language, choice of words, and gratuitous jabs at capitalism and those evil rich bastards says otherwise. (Besides, what's the point of all these ignorant rantings if not to effect some change towards your own twisted version of 'progress')
As for the rest, I get nauseated myself every time I hear this whining leftist tripe. It's a free world (whether you like it or not), if you don't like buying consumer shit, don't. If you don't want to work for someone else, don't. If you want to gather and send as many resources to the third world as you want go for it. If you want to live as a backwoods aboriginal dumbfuck, by all means give up your evil western trappings and enjoy your nasty, brutish, and short existence.
It's not your inability to do those things that's the issue, it's your inability to force others to do them. It's freedom which you truly despise.
18 - Dave Nalle
Doug, the last few lines of that last comment were just brilliant. I hope you won't mind if I borrow them from time to time.
Dave
19 - Zedd
Doug
You truly missed the point. Read the article again. I don't know Graham and his leanings but there is a profundity in this article that transcends political affiliation and focuses on modern ideas about relevance and significance.
What is more sad to me is how some people of the right (I'm neither right or left)when they don't understand more contemplated ideas, automatically attack them as leftist. That simply contributes to the idea that the right is full of thick, knee jerk types with no intellectual capability.
Is the real truth that YOU DIDN'T UNDERSTAND WHAT HE WAS SAYING?
If not, what may be useful is for you to contribute what it is about this particular article that you disagree with. Instead of morphing into Rush mode.
20 - Clavos
Clavos, Cuba and North Korea are dictatorships that places pride in the nation before pride in the working class etc, they are communist only in name.
Quite.
But they're very representative of all the regimes worldwide which, over the years, have been established in the name of communism.
21 - Zedd
Clavos
Older Russians don't hold that opinion.
22 - Graham McKnight
I thank Zedd for her defence of my argument, as I have said in a previous comment about this article; I point to Communism only as an example of how, even if society were to experience a radical change in its social order, humanity would not have progressed in any universal direction, just changed (for the better according to Marx).
I also point out to Clavos etc that Marx's theory cannot be proven wrong until a working class revolution takes place in an industrially advanced nation such as Germany, Japan, USA etc. If Communism were to take root and fail in these countries Marx would be proven wrong.
Until that day I will continue to hold Communism as something to be admired rather than destested.
23 - Dave Nalle
Some would argue that change for the better is the definition of progress, Graham.
As for communism, one doesn't have to object to it solely on the basis of the many failed self-styled communist regimes around the world. Though I have to say that Russia in 1917 was certainly as much an industrial nation as Germany at the time that Marx was writing, so it may have been a fair test of the system.
In anycase, I think it's reasonable to object to Marxism purely on the basis of its opposition to individual ownership of property and capital. Forced equality is inherently oppressive, even when implemented in the most positive possible way.
I do think there are related ideas which are very good. I think collectivism as a business model deserves a fair shake, for example, but it can function within a capitalist system and actually has a very positive influence on a capitalist society.
Ultimately, like every other political/economic philosophies, communism is only pure in the abstract, and can be used as an excuse for abuse and excess, but never really implemented in its pure form in the real world.
Dave
24 - Clavos
Graham writes:
I also point out to Clavos etc that Marx's theory cannot be proven wrong until a working class revolution takes place in an industrially advanced nation such as Germany, Japan, USA etc. If Communism were to take root and fail in these countries Marx would be proven wrong. (emphasis added)
A BIG "if", Graham.
Until that day I will continue to hold Communism as something to be admired rather than destested.
Well, Graham my advice to you is not to hold your breath while you wait.
25 - Zedd
Dave #23
Best post that you have made this year imo. Quite balanced and considered. I agree.
On the point about the failure of communist regimes, it should be noted that most new regimes fail. The extent of success that these new governments had/have is more surprising to me. The fact that they "stabilized" as quickly as they did speaks to the criminal/punitive element within their structure. Our style of governance would have been disastrous to those countries. What is happening in most of Africa would have been common in the Soviet States and Asian countries.
Creating an interdependent system like capitalism is very difficult. There has to be a belief by all that the system is the best system. Everyone must play their part. That is difficult to orchestrate.