ok, if 'progressive' means supporting progress then it might not always be good to be progressive. I don't see how you can say that progress is always good. what about the damage we do along the way?  its usually the right  that goes on about progress and ordinary people who have to put up with the consequences. we get freeways that we don't want,  people lose their jobs because machines are more efficient.

I think some technology is good - eg i love computers and the internet but I also think there is always a danger, we can't just say that every bit of progress is good. that isn't a  left wing attitude,  being left wing is a state of mind where you are always on the side of the small people - minorities,  the people with the least power  who  don't really have a chance.

Bill Kerr wrote

I think there's a whole cluster of ideas here that determines what is left and what is right (not just one idea) that involve attitudes to:

* war, violence and peace
* the state of the environment, assessment of the Green movement
* philosophy, whether dynamist (for rapid change) or statist (play safe, hold back change)
* technological progress  - good or bad?
* science / biology - nature / nurture and implications for human equality
* flexibility in thinking - is it possible for US imperialism to do progressive things?

My answers briefly - violence initiated by the US has been progressive in Iraq, rapid technological progress is a very good thing, dynamist philosophy and rapid change is the way to go, our genes do make a difference to who we can become

why throw in the bit about genes?  this makes me think you might be on the way to saying that some people are more equal than others.  do you believe in progress', rapid change,  the sirvival of the fittest - it all sounds pretty right wing to me.  

samsky wrote:  "why throw in the bit about genes?  this makes me think you might be on the way to saying that some people are more equal than others.  do you believe in progress', rapid change,  the sirvival of the fittest - it all sounds pretty right wing to me."  

Just a quick response to  this part of samsky's post for now.

I think what Bill was getting at is related to the broader issue of  the  'left'  having a negative attitude toward science due both to a fear of what we might discover  and a committment  to "the precautionary principle" (much beloved of greenies).

But just looking at the  fear issue for now.  What people seem to be afraid of is  that discoveries about genes might lead to social problems being ascribed to  'people not having the right genes'  - ie  to  the idea that what is wrong is the people rather than the system.  

But there's another way of looking at it.  The more we know about our genetic make up,  the more we have the capacity to create environments in which different individuals will thrive - physically, emotionally and intellectually.  

Given that genes are of importance (and I really don'ty see how this can be denied), the  only way not  to be at the mercy of our genetic make up is to know as much as possible about it . This sort of knowledge will enable us to make appropriate environmental adjustments to compensate for our weaknesses  and enhance our  strengths. 

Already it's possible to identify genes which put people at greater risk of some forms of cancer and hear disease and as a result we are becoming able to intervene on an envronmental level to reduce the risk. In the future we may  be able to design educational environments which cater for people with genetically based learning difficulties etc.

So rather than leading to the "survival of the fittest", an acceptance  of the idea that genes are of importance in 'who we are'  should lead to greater opportunities  - not just for survival but for unleashing people's potential.

"In my chosen field of autism, I believe that the cause will turn out
to be assortative mating of two hyper-systemizers. I believe this
because we already have 3 pieces of the jig-saw: (1) that fathers of
children with autism are more likely to work in the field of engineering
(compared to fathers of children without autism); (2) that grandfathers
of children with autism on both sides of the family were also more
likely to work in the field of engineering (compared to grandfathers of
children without autism); and (3) that both mothers and fathers of
children with autism are super-fast at the embedded figures test, a task
requiring analysis of patterns and rules. (Note that engineering is a
chosen example because it involves strong systemizing. But other related
scientific and technical fieldswould have
been equally good examples to study)."
http://www.edge.org/q2005/q05_5.html#baroncohen
SIMON BARON-COHEN
Psychologist, Autism Research Centre, Cambridge University; Author, The
Essential Difference

What do we mean by ‘progress’ and why is it left-wing to be in favour of progress? 

• that  we can make our own  history, 
• that there are laws of nature which  we can discover and use to our advantage, 
• that we can be masters of our destiny here on earth

• that we can create a better world and better people (god is out of the picture)
  

This instinctive pessimism of the Greeks had a religious tinge which
perhaps even the Epicureans found it hard entirely to expunge. They
always felt that they were in the presence of unknown incalculable
powers, and that subtle dangers lurked in human achievements and
gains. Horace has taken this feeling as the motif of a criticism on
man's inventive powers. A voyage of Virgil suggests the reflection
that his friend's life would not be exposed to hazards on the high
seas if the art of navigation had never been discovered--if man had
submissively respected the limits imposed by nature. But man is
audacious:



  Nequiquam deus abscidit
    Prudens oceano dissociabili   Terras.



  In vain a wise god sever'd lands
    By the dissociating sea.



Daedalus violated the air, as Hercules invaded hell. The discovery
of fire put us in possession of a forbidden secret. Is this
unnatural conquest of nature safe or wise? Nil mortalibus ardui est:



   Man finds no feat too hard or high;
    Heaven is not safe from man's desire.
    Our rash designs move Jove to ire,
   He dares not lay his thunder by.



The thought of this ode roughly expresses what
would have been the instinctive sense of thoughtful Greeks if the
idea of Progress had been presented to them. It would have struck
them as audacious, the theory of men unduly elated and perilously at
ease in the presence of unknown incalculable powers.

From J.B. Bury  The Idea of Progress

ALTHOUGH hailed in some circles of conceit as a glorious symbol of more speed and bigger machines, and in others as a covering for cruel materialism, the concept of progress is one of the most profound and germinal ideas at work in the modern age.

It is at the same time an interpretation of the long history of mankind and a philosophy of action in this world of bewildering choices. It gives a clue of meaning to the rise of civilization out of the crudities of primitive barbarism and offers a guide to the immense impending future.


Briefly defined, it implies that mankind, by making use of science and invention, can progressively emancipate itself from plagues, famines, and social disasters, and subjugate the materials and forces of the earth to the purposes of the good life-here and now.


 In essence the idea of progress belongs to our own times, for it was unknown to the ancients and to the thinkers of the Middle Ages. It is associated, therefore, with every phase of the vast intellectual, economic, and rational movement which has transformed the classical and medieval heritage into what is called, for the sake of convenience, Western civilization.




Unknown to the ancients, foreign to the theology of the Middle Ages, the idea of progress was slow in taking form and winning its way as a dominant concept of life. In reality it was a kind of gigantic intellectual outcropping-the product of the great commercial revolution ushered in by the discovery of America, the circumnavigation of the globe, and the development of natural science.


As J. B. Bury points out,' certain conditions were necessary to the flowering of the idea. First of all, there had to be respect for, and interest in, the common business of labor and industry-a respect which the slaveowners of ancient Athens and the landlords of the Middle Ages could not acquire. In the next place, since the idea of progress had to do with this world, it was necessary to shake off the dominance of other-worldliness and to think in secular terms; the recovery of ancient learning in the renaissance and the commercial revolution to which reference has been made favored this shift from heaven to earth. Finally, the idea of progress could not flourish until thinkers had cast overboard their slavish adherence to ancient books. Natural science, with its emphasis on experimentation, the observation of common things, and invention, was necessary to clear the way for the emancipation of the mind from the despotism of theology and the classics.


By the end of the seventeenth century, when all the American colonies except one, had been fairly started on their course, the ground was prepared for the rise and growth of the idea of progress-the steady improvement of the lot of mankind in this world as a good in itself, as a value in itself, without any reference whatever to a possible life after death. 


 Charles A  Beard

keza,

this is all very interesting (I mean it) .  The historical angle is useful, its a new angle for me especially since I  never did really did any history eg I don't know anything about the enlightenment (even when it was!)  but what you said has made me decide to do some googling (probably I should have done it before writing this  

what you say makes sense but still doesn't prove  that  going forward = getting better .  the main thing you seem to be saying is that progress (inventions, discoveries) is a human thing but that doesn't mean it will always be good for us.  eating is a human thing but eating too much isn't good for us.    but you said you are going to cover this and I will be interested to read what you say.

samsky

What is progress? well İ suppose i have always seen progress as the movement from the realm of necessity to the realm of freedom.

How and from what do we obtain freedom?

We are in conflict with nature and to put it simply we need to free ourselves from a reliance on nature to control  nature as quickly as possible.

progress is progress in this struggle. İt is the development of technology that reduces our reliance on nature.

WE are moving in a positive direction (from simple nomads to galactical travel) and this has been true historically up the minute. There have been set backs mistakes and collateral damage but we have moved on and for the vast majority of humanity this has been positive and progressive.

We should not focus on the the fact that it is not smooth and that there are risks but rather embrace the challenge and enjoy the journey.

You may occassionally get a stomach ache but that is better than starving to death.

İt is the economic development due to technology that allows us to have this discussion to push politics forward and to change the culture of the world and move to more economic political and scientific freedom. (nano pre conditions)

İ am not sure why people think stabilty and security are what they shoul be striving for,  when those countries that are closest to achieving this have the highest suicide rates and the most peole suffering from depression.

 İ have always assumed that this is to do with the mundane boring lives they lead and their lack of challenges. People need to take risks get the adrenlin flowing and walk on the edge for a bit.

Push things to the limit. push things forward!  

ok, if 'progressive' means supporting progress then it might not always be good to be progressive. I don't see how you can say that progress is always good. what about the damage we do along the way?  its usually the right  that goes on about progress and ordinary people who have to put up with the consequences. we get freeways that we don't want,  people lose their jobs because machines are more efficient.

Some public servant has drawn a line through a map that goes through people's homes and they've decided to build a freeway along that line, to bulldoze those homes. And this person calls himself a public servant. What a joke. It's time this government realised that it's the job of "public servants" to serve the people not bulldoze their homes.

Samsky wrote: what you say makes sense but still doesn't prove  that  going forward = getting better .  the main thing you seem to be saying is that progress (inventions, discoveries) is a human thing but that doesn't mean it will always be good for us.  eating is a human thing but eating too much isn't good for us.    but you said you are going to cover this and I will be interested to read what you say.

I think humans are problem solvers by nature.  We solve one problem only to find ourselves faced with another one.  Your over-eating example demonstrates this very well.  But it seems to me that  we will solve this problem. It's a pretty good problem to have really - I don't think many people would argue that abundance of food has turned out to be a bad thing due to this.


I think that there are two ways in which we can argue that "going forward = getting better" .

(1) Objectively the world has been getting better rather than worse.  I'm talking here of measurable things like life expectancy, health, poverty levels, literacy and so on... of the direction in which things have been moving in a general sense.

I'm certainly not saying that there's anything acceptable about curent levels of these things, I'm just saying that these things have been improving (overall) rather than getting worse.  And I'm also not saying that things have been getting better for each and every individual.  But I do think it's clearly true to say that  the random individual is generally better off than his her parents and grandparents were at the same age.

(2) Exploring, discovering, making sense of the world is an essential part of being human.  It's what makes us different from other animals and this inevitably leads to progress.   The former is just not possible without the latter.


In her book The Future and It's Enemies    Virginia Postrel quotes  Friedrich Hayek (libertarian, pro-capitalist economist) who said:

"progress is movement for movement's sake, for it is in the process of learning, and in the effects of having learned something that man enjoys the gift of his own intelligence"

She then goes on to say...

Hayek is making the weakest possible claim for progress which he defines as "the cumulative growth of knowledge and power over nature".  That claim does not depend on any demonstrable increase in prosperity, comfort or happiness. It simply allows the human spirit to flourish. Most dynamists - most especially the mundane  problems solvers and experimenters who  derive "progress" without ever thinking in such grandisose terms   - look for an often find, less abstract benefits.



Progress does not mean that everyone will be better off in every respect. But under ordinary circumstances for the random individual, life in a dynamist society will be better, on the whole than life today. It will offer more variety, more opportunity, more options, more knowledge, more control over time and place, more life. It will address more sources of dissatisfaction ( though it may also call attention to new ones) and create more sources of delight”

Hayek and Postrel are not left-wingers. However  the views expressed by Postrel in The Future and its Enemies are  an excellent defence of what is positive about capitalism  -  and  such ideas are well worth engaging with.  Postrel is first and foremost in favour of progress and against the cramping of development by restrictive policies and practices..BUT...nowhere  in her book does she question her assumption that  a liobertarian capitalist system is the most dynamic  and creative form of social organisation that is possible.


Engels on the other hand,  also celebrated the rapid progress and accompanying upheaval of capitalist development,  however he did so because he saw such rapid development as waking people up and  "forcing them to think and demand a position worthy of men" (Condition of the Working Class in England)


In his account of the history of the English Working class Engels  points out that before the introduction of machinery workers were in some senses better off  than afterwards:

Before the introduction of machinery, the spinning and weaving of raw materials was carried on in the workingman's home. Wife and daughter spun the yarn that the father wove or that they sold, if he did not work it up himself. These weaver families lived in the country in the neighbourhood of the towns, and could get on fairly well with their wages, because the home market was almost the only one and the crushing power of competition that came later, with the conquest of foreign markets and the extension of trade, did not yet press upon wages.

 

There was, further, a constant increase in the demand for the home market, keeping pace with the slow increase in population and employing all the workers; and there was also the impossibility of vigorous competition of the workers among themselves, consequent upon the rural dispersion of their homes. So it was that the weaver was usually in a position to lay by something, and rent a little piece of land, that he cultivated in his leisure hours, of which he had as many as he chose to take, since he could weave whenever and as long as he pleased.

 

 

True, he was a bad farmer and managed his land inefficiently, often obtaining but poor crops; nevertheless, he was no proletarian, he had a stake in the country, he was permanently settled, and stood one step higher in society than the English workman of
 today.

So the workers vegetated throughout a passably comfortable existence, leading a righteous and peaceful life in all piety and probity; and their material position was far better than that of their successors. They did not need to overwork; they did no more than they chose to do, and yet earned what they needed.

 

 

They had leisure for healthful work in garden or field, work which, in itself, was recreation for them, and they could take part besides in the recreations and games of their neighbours, and all these games -- bowling, cricket, football, etc., contributed to their physical health and vigour.

 

 

They were, for the most part, strong, well-built people, in whose physique little or no difference from that of their peasant neighbours was discoverable. Their children grew up in the fresh country air, and, if they could help their parents at work, it was only occasionally; while of eight or twelve hours work for them there was no question.

However,  (he goes on to argue),  secure as they were, they were also "intellectually dead":

What the moral and intellectual character of this class was may be guessed. Shut off from the towns, which they never entered, their yarn and woven stuff being delivered to travelling agents for payment of wages -- so shut off that old people who lived quite in the neighborhood of the town never went thither until they were robbed of their trade by the introduction of machinery and obliged to look about them in the towns for work -- the weavers stood upon the moral and intellectual plane of the yeomen with whom they were usually immediately connected through their little holdings. They regarded their squire, the greatest landholder of the region, as their natural superior; they asked advice of him, laid their small disputes before him for settlement, and gave him all honour, as this patriarchal relation involved.

 

 

They were "respectable" people, good husbands and fathers, led moral lives because they had no temptation to be immoral, there being no groggeries or low houses in their vicinity, and because the host, at whose inn they now and then quenched their thirst, was also a respectable man, usually a large tenant-farmer who took pride in his good order, good beer, and early hours.

They had their children the whole day at home, and brought them up in obedience and the fear of God; the patriarchal relationship remained undisturbed so long as the children were unmarried. The young people grew up in idyllic simplicity and intimacy with their playmates until they married; and even though sexual intercourse before marriage almost unfailingly took place, this happened only when the moral obligation of marriage was recognised on both sides, and a subsequent wedding made everything good. In short, the English industrial workers of those days lived and thought after the fashion still to be found here and there in Germany, in retirement and seclusion, without mental activity and without violent fluctuations in their position in life.

They could rarely read and far more rarely write; went regularly to church, never talked politics, never conspired, never thought, delighted in physical exercises, listened with inherited reverence when the Bible was read, and were, in their unquestioning humility, exceedingly well-disposed towards the "superior" classes.

But intellectually, they were dead; lived only for their petty, private interest, for their looms and gardens, and knew nothing of the mighty movement which, beyond their horizon, was sweeping through mankind.

They were comfortable in their silent vegetation, and but for the industrial revolution they would never have emerged from this existence, which, cosily romantic as it was, was nevertheless not worthy of human beings. In truth, they were not human beings; they were merely toiling machines in the service of the few aristocrats who had guided history down to that time.

 The industrial revolution has simply carried this out to its logical end by making the workers machines pure and simple, taking from them the last trace of independent activity, and so forcing them to think and demand a position worthy of men. As in France politics, so in England manufacture and the movement of civil society in general drew into the whirl of history the last classes which had remained sunk in apathetic indifference to the universal interests of mankind.

Unlike Postrel,  Engels sees the rapid progress of capitalist development as preparing the oppressed to take over.  

well I've run out of time .... will send this now...and  hope  for some responses, questions, criticisms from readers of this forum...       

Samsky, thank you for initiating this discussion. I'm finding it really valuable.

A question I'd like to toss in is: what happens if there is no progress? Do things just stay as they are? I think not. The choice is really between progress and atrophy. In a sense, human beings have never had any choice but to seek out ways to improve their condition.

Keza's post was really useful, I thought. Thanks for reminding me of Engels' book.

Bill, your post about the freeways deserves much wider audience. Why not rework it into an article, or a letter to 'The Age'?

By the way, I also was active in the 1970s anti-freeway campaign. I remember someone getting a huge round of applause at a public meeting for saying that freeways should be opposed because they were being built by foreign multinational companies for cars that were manufactured by foreign multinational companies. (Okay, time to 'fess up: that someone was me.).

The linkage of 'big money' to issues is really a poor way of arguing but it is often the 'clincher' in the 'Green' arsenal. Just show that something new will make profit for a big company and that new thing, whatever it is, just has to be bad and wrong. This is actually (Right-wing) populism.

Lucky they weren't around when the big profit-hungry US, British and European pharmaceutical companies started cashing in on penicillin in the 1940s and 1950s, making it available to millions of people who, previously, could die from an infection caused by a rose thorn prick.

I think Tom hit the nail on the head by defining progress in terms of necessity and freedom. The great thing about being alive now rather than a century ago is that the basics (food, shelter) are covered in the industrialised world and people can meaningfully strive for a better quality of life. The awful things, however, are that too many people on the planet are yet to industrialise and modernise - 'cover the basics' - and we live in a system that retards any progress that is not profitable. (Penicillin was never patented - had it been owned by a company, its distribution to the masses would never have been so efficient).

Barry

I just "discovered" this forum and all the pages here. It is quite a piece of work, altogether. I would participate, except that I can see that to enter into any discussion at all would go immediately to fundamental axioms and assumptions that would take tremendous time and energy (more than I have!) to address.

For example, (one of many), the slighting of "greenies" and their "neo-paganism" (I believe that was the locution) is IMO quite wrongheaded and indeed deeply flawed; this alone would no doubt make for weeks of tedious exchange -- most of it (likely) pointless. Though maybe not. Maybe it would not be pointless.


Maybe one or other of the parties (including me), or even both, might actually learn something. That is always possible. I shan't be unduly "pessimistic" (another of the favorite epithets around here, I gather).


On the other hand, I've learned over the years, at great cost, just how virtually-impossible it is for individuals to change their minds in any substantial way, i.e. at the level of myth, paradigm or fundamental conviction. I've just about reached the end of my long period of attempting it.


 It is too energy- intensive, with no payoff. It is practically impossible to make a point that even *suggests* the *possible* need for paradigmatic revision, let alone compelling the revision itself -- so violently is the personal/ideological turf defended.

But there I go again, waxing pessimistic just as I had promised not to! OK, here's an optimistic point: there IS a payoff in fundamental critique, and in dialog with others, and it consists of the possibility (if it is undertaken sincerely) and even inevitability of inducing one to change one's own mind. The key to that is in the sincerity of purpose, and by that I mean a sincere committment to the path of truth (if you will) -- a committment to the elucidation of truth, regardless of the personal cost (including the "pain", even unto literal pain, of being compelled to renounce what was theretofore held dear). End of today's mini-rant.

Alan